ipS-SMia';:"  <^  hr: 


r,iivi? 


Division 
Section 


ZECHARIAH  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES,    I 

IN  RELATION  TO  MODERN-tRITICISM :    "^       i 


CONSIDERED         -^  .  -  ^ 


Criikal  iinb  ^rammatkal  Comnunlaru 


/^ 


NEW   TRANSLATION.      ^ 

EIGHT  LECTURES    DELIVERED    BEFORE    THE    UNIVERSLTY    OF 
OXFORD  LN  THE    YEAR    1878,   ON   THE  FOUNDATLON 
OF  THE  LATE  REV.  JOHN  BAMPTON,  M.A., 
CANON  OF  SALISBURY. 


BY  y 

V 

charle:s  henry  Hamilton  wright,  b.d., 

Of  Trinity  College,  Dublin;  M.A.  of  Exeter  College,  Oxford ; 

Phil.D.  of  the  University  of  Leipzig  ;  atid  Incumbent 

of  St.  Mary's,  Belfast. 


E.    P.    BUTTON   &  CO., 

713,   BROADWAY. 

MDCCCLXXIX. 


) 


Enthr  Cp'   Tar.rcr, 

The  Sclwood  Printing:  Worlcs, 

Frame,  and  London. 


ERRATA. 

P.  131 — Line  i  of  note  i,  read  "  Daniel  ii."  for  Daniel  iii." 

0  0      7       -^    -x    o  y        •>-> 
p.  186— Note  I,  read  the  Syriac  |vo\^o  jcou  ]l^i]  "^^io 

P.  295 — Line  5  from  the  top,  erase  the  name  "  Delitzsch." 

P-  303 — Line  3  from  bottom,  "  Tablai  "  ought  to  be  read  for  "  Tavlai," 

though  the  latter  form  is  used  by  McCaul. 

P.  328— Note  I,  hne  3,  erase  the  "  ?"  in  "  But  this  is  doubtful  ?" 

P.  347 — Line  5  from  bottom  of  page,  read  w  for  c3.     In  the  same  note 

two  broken  7s  appear. 

P.  353 — Line  8,  read  "renderings"  instead  of  "readings." 

P.  362 — Second  line  from  bottom,  a  broken  ~i  occurs  in  ?1^"1. 

P.  395 — The  "  von "  is  omitted  in  some  places  in  the  name  of  "  von 

Baudissin." 

P.  460 — Line  18,  read  "  Theodoret  "  instead  of  "Thedoret." 
P.  508 — Line  9  from  bottom,  a  broken  d  occurs  in  ascend. 
P.  527 — Line  12  from  top,  b'^'^VD  with  broken  7. 


EXTRACT 

FROM    THE    LAST    WILL   AND    TESTAMENT 

OF   THE   LATE 

REV.    JOHN    BAMPTON,    M.A., 

CANON   OF   SALISBURY. 


"  I  give  and  bequeath  my  Lands  and  Estates  to  the 

"  Chancellor,  Masters,  and  Scholars,  of  the  University  of  Oxford 
"  for  ever,  to  have  and  to  hold  all  and  singular  the  said  Lands 
"  or  Estates  upon  trust,  and  to  the  intents  and  purposes  here- 
"  inafter  mentioned  ;  that  is  to  «say,  I  will  and  appoint  that 
"  the  Vice-Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Oxford  for  the 
"  time  being  shall  take  and  receive  all  the  rents,  issues,  and 
"  profits  thereof,  and  (after  all  taxes,  reparations,  and  necessary 
"  deductions  made)  that  he  pay  all  the  remainder  to  the  en- 
"  dowment  of  eight  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons,  to  be  estab- 
"  lished  for  ever  in  the  said  University,  and  to  be  performed 
"  in  the  manner  following  : — 

"  I  direct  and  appoint,  that  upon  the  First  Tuesday  in 
"  Easter  Term,  a  Lecturer  may  be  yearly  chosen  by  the  Heads 
"of  Colleges  only,  and  by  no  others,  in  the  room  adjoining  to 
"  the  Printing-house,  between  the  hours  of  ten  in  the  morning 
"  and  two  in  the  afternoon,  to  preach  eight  Divinity  Lecture 
"  Sermons,  the  year  following,  at  St.  Mary's  in  Oxford,  between 
"  the  commencement  of  the  last  month  in  Lent  Term,  and  the 
"  end  of  the  third  week  in  Act  Term. 


IV   EXTRACT  FROM  WILL  OF  LATE  REV.  JOHN  BAMPTON. 

"  Also  I  direct  and  appoint,  that  the  eight  Divinity  Lecture 
"Sermons  shall  be  preached  upon  cither  of  the  following 
"  subjects — To  confirm  and  establish  the  Christian  faith,  and 
"to  confute  all  heretics  and  schismatics — Upon  the  Divine 
"  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures — Upon  the  authority  of 
"  the  writings  of  the  primitive  Fathers,  as  to  the  faith  and 
"practice  of  the  primitive  Church — Upon  the  Divinity  of  our 
"  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ — Upon  the  Divinity  of  the 
"  Holy  Ghost — Upon  the  Articles  of  the  Christian  Faith,  as 
•"  comprehended  in  the  Apostles'  and  Nicene  creeds. 

"  Also  I  direct,  that  thirty  copies  of  the  eight  Divinity 
"  Lecture  Sermons  shall  be  always  printed,\vithin  two  months 
"  after  they  are  preached  ;  and  one  copy  shall  be  given  to  the 
"  Chancellor  of  the  University,  and  one  copy  to  the  Head  of 
"  every  College,  and  one  copy  to  the  Mayor  of  the  City  of 
"  Oxford,  and  one  copy  to  be  put  into  the  Bodleian  Library  ; 
"  and  the  expense  of  printing  them  shall  be  paid  out  of  the 
"  revenue  of  the  Land  or  Estates  given  for  establishing  the 
"  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons,  and  the  Preacher  shall  not  be 
"  paid,  nor  be  entitled  to  the  revenue,  before  they  are 
"printed. 

"  Also  I  direct  and  appoint,  that  no  person  shall  be  quali- 
"  fied  to  preach  the  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons,  unless  he  hath 
"  taken  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  at  least,  in  one  of  the  two 
"  Universities  of  Oxford  or  Cambridge ;  and  that  the  same 
"  person  shall  never  preach  the  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons 
"  twice." 


The   Very    Rev.  ROBERT  PAYNE  SMITH,   D.D.,    Dean   of  Canterbury, 
formerly  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Oxford  and 
Canon    of  Christ's   Church;    Bampton    Lecturer,   1859;  Editor   of  the 
"  Thesaurus  Syriacus,"  and  of  other  Syriac  and  Tlieological  works  ; 
A  sound  theologian,  an  eminent  Orientalist,  and  a  constant  friend  : 


WILLIAM  WRIGHT,  Esq.,  M.A.,  LL.D.,  D.D.,  Ph.D.,  Fellow  of  Queens' 
College,  Professor  of  Arabic  in  the  University  of  Cambridge,  formerly 
Professor  of  Arabic  in  the  University  of  Dublin  ;  Author  of  "  A  Gram- 
mar of  the  Arabic  Language,"  and  Editor  of  many  works  in  Arabic, 
Syriac,  etc.  ; 

A  Shemitic  scholar  of  the  highest  class,  whose  personal  friendship 
the  Author  has  enjoyed  for  many  years,  having  had  the  honour 
and  advantage  of  studying  Oriental  Languages  under  him  at 
Trinity  College,  Dublin  ; 


The  Rev.  FRANZ  DELITZSCH,  D.D.,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the 
University  of  Leipzig,  formerly  Professor  in  the  Universities  of  Rostock 
and  Erlangen  ;  one  of  the  foremost  Hebraists  of  the  day,  a  distinguished 
theologian,  and  an  eminent  commentator  ; 

In  acknowledgment  of  many  personal  kindnesses,  and  of  Christian 
regard  and  esteem  for  the  Lutheran  Churches  of  Germany,  especially 
that  of  Saxony,  and  of  deep  obligations  to  the  scholars  of  the  great 
"Fatherland  "  : 

This  attempt  to  follow  in  their  footsteps,  "  baud  paribus  gressibus,"  and  to 
promote  the  study  of  the  Old  Testament  on  a  philological  and  grammatical 
basis, 

IS   DEDICATED   BY 

THE  AUTHOR. 


PREFACE. 


In  sending  forth  this  volume  it  may  be  well  to  state  that, 
in  the  treatment  of  my  subject,  I  considered  it  best  to  avoid 
altogether  the  form  of  sermons.  So  far  as  delivered,  how- 
ever, the  Lectures  now  published  appear  in  the  form  in 
which  they  were  actually  preached  from  the  University 
pulpit,  although  it  was  absolutely  necessary  (as  is  usual  on 
such  occasions)  to  read  only  a  portion  of  each  Lecture.  In 
order  to  make  the  work  complete  as  a  commentary  on  the 
entire  book  of  Zechariah,  chapters  have  been  added  on  those 
portions  which  had  to  be  wholly  passed  over  in  the  course 
of  the  Lectures.  In  the  note  below  I  have  mentioned  what 
portions  of  the  work  is  embraced  by  these  additions.^ 

A  work  written  amid  the  necessary  duties  and  cares 
connected    with    the   sole   pastoral  charge   of   a    large    and 

1  Chapter  I.  formed  the  first  Lecture,  delivered  on  St.  Patrick's  Day,  March 
17th,  1878.  Chapter  II.  was  preached  on  March  24th,  Chapters  III.  and  IV.  as 
one  Lecture  on  April  28th,  and  Chapters  V.  and  VI.  together  on  May  5th. 
Chapter  VII.  was  not  dehvered  before  the  University.  Chapter  VIII.  was  the 
Lecture  delivered  on  May  12th.  Chapter  IX.  was  not  preached.  Chapter  X. 
was  delivered  on  May  19th,  Chapter  XL  on  May  26th,  and  Chapter  XII.,  being 
the  eighth  and  concluding  Lecture,  on  June  2nd.  Chapter  XIII.  was  added  to 
complete  the  work. 


Vlii  PREFACE. 

populous  town  parish,  may  be  expected  to  exhibit  some 
traces  of  its  having  been  so  composed.  At  no  time,  ex- 
cept during  the  short  period  of  my  residence  at  Oxford, 
have  I  had  that  leisure  which  is  generally  desirable  in  such 
cases.  I  trust,  notwithstanding,  that  the  work,  such  as  it 
is,  may  help  some  to  a  better  understanding  of  one  of  the 
books  of  the  Minor  Prophets  which  has  always  been  con- 
sidered among  the  most  obscure  and  difficult  portions  of 
Holy  Scripture. 

In  accordance  with  the  object  of  the  pious  founder  of  the 
Bampton  Lecture,  this  work  has  naturally  an  apologetic 
character,  and  has  been  written  with  the  view  of  taking  a 
calm  survey  of  the  results  of  modern  criticism  as  affecting  the 
most  important  book  of  the  Minor  Prophets.  I  was,  how- 
ever, fully  prepared  to  have  altogether  abandoned  the  tradi- 
tional view  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  second  part  of  the 
book  of  Zechariah,  had  the  arguments  against  its  integrity 
appeared  to  me  to  demand  such  a  course.  I  have  honestly 
endeavoured  to  weigh,  as  carefully  as  possible,  the  evidence 
presented  by  eminent  modern  critics  on  this  point,  although 
I  have  felt  constrained  to  differ  from  their  conclusions. 

In  the  treatment  of  other  questions  of  even  greater  import- 
ance, namely,  the  Messianic  prophecies,  I  have  endeavoured 
fairly  to  state  the  opinions  on  both  sides.  If,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  any  one,  I  appear  to  have  failed  in  doing  so,  I  trust 
my  failure  will  not  be  ascribed  to  an  improper  cause. 

I  have  held  aloof  from  the  condemnable  practice  of  abus- 
ing those  critics  from  whose  views  I  conscientiously  dissent, 


PREFACE.  IX 

and  I  have,  therefore,  abstained  from  characterizhig  such 
scholars  as  "  Rationahsts  "  or  "  unbehevers,"  some  of  them 
being  v^ery  unfairly  regarded  as  such.  I  hope  I  have 
profited  by  the  study  of  writers  of  all  the  various  schools 
of  thought.  Even  the  works  of  the  few  modern  Roman 
Catholic  divines  who  have  written  on  Zechariah,  such  as 
Reinke,  Theiner,  and  Schegg,  have  afforded  me  much  assis- 
tance, and  I  rejoice  to  be  able  to  acknowledge  the  un- 
sectarian  spirit  and  scholarlike  manner  in  which  they  have 
treated  the  subject.  Of  the  works  of  scholars  of  the  other 
schools  of  criticism  I  need  not  here  speak  particularly,  as  a 
list  of  the  books  which  have  been  consulted  is  given  in  the 
Introduction,  §  8. 

The  critical  and  grammatical  commentary  appended  to 
the  Lectures,  though  fuller  on  such  points  than  anything 
which  has  yet  appeared  in  England,  is  not  as  complete  as 
I  would  have  wished  to  have  made  it,  had  time  and  space 
permitted.  A  large  number  of  the  notes  given  under  the  text 
of  the  Lectures  properly  belong  to  that  part  of  the  work. 

The  new  translation  will,  I  hope,  help  to  a  better  under- 
standing of  the  meaning  of  the  original.  As  regards  such 
translations,  I  fully  agree  with  the  remarks  of  Dr.  Perowne, 
in  the  Preface  to  the  Second  Edition  of  his  valuable  work 
on  the  Psalms ;  and  as  I  expect  to  be  accused,  as  he  has 
been,  of  "needlessly  departing"  from  our  Authorised  English 
Version,  I  cannot  do  better  than  refer  to  what  he  has  said 
on  that  subject.  As  the  translation  here  given  is  not  in- 
tended to  supersede  our  A.V.,  or  to  be  viewed  as  a  revision 


X  PREFACE. 

thereof,    I    have   felt   myself  free   to    act   without    constant 
reference  to   that   version.     In    any  revision  of  a   National 
Version   for  general    use,   I  should    advocate  as  few  altera- 
tions as  possible,  but  the  object  of  the  translation  accom- 
panying this  work   is  very   different.      Words  necessary  to 
complete  the  sense,  or  to  express  it  more  fully,  have  been 
added  within  brackets,   as  well   as  occasional  explanations, 
and  in  some  cases  alternative  ways  of  translating  a  passage. 
The    paragraphs   adopted    are   those   of  the    Hebrew  text, 
except    in    chapters   iii.  and  v.       Under   the    text   will    be 
found  a   number  of  various    readings,  but   the   critical  com- 
mentary  must   be   generally  consulted    for   such,    as     many 
other  readings  are  there  given.      I  have  endeavoured,  espe- 
cially in  the    poetical    portions,  by  a  freer  use    of   commas 
than    usual    to     express    some    of   the    peculiarities    of   the 
Hebrew  accentuation. 
^7^      Throughout  this  work  the  form  Jahavch  (to  be  pronounced 
^    Yahaveh)  has  been  adopted  for  the  sacred  name,  instead  of 
'"«*'.   Jehovah,  though  the  latter  is  almost  consecrated  by  use  in 
this  country.     The  latter  form  has  been  indeed  recently  de- 
fended by  Hoelemann,  but  is  certainly  erroneous.     The  name 
is  properly  speaking  an  imperfect  kal  of  the  \-crb  mn  or  tTTT 
as  explained  in  Exod.  iii.  14.     From  the  form   ^J}^,  all  the 
other   forms  of   the  sacred    name,  used    in  composition,    or 
otherwise  (such   as  ri\  ^r\\  or  in\  V),   can  be  explained,  as 
well  as  the  'Ia/3e  of  Theodorct  and  Epiphanius.     The  form 
"Jahaveh"  is   better  suited   to  the   rhythm    than    "Jahve," 
adopted  by  Ewald  and  most  German    scholars.      Had  this 


PREFACE.  XI 

work  been  designed  for  the  masses,  I  would  scarcely  have 
ventured  on  this  change,  which  will  be  regarded  as  an  in- 
novation in  England.  But  as  the  work  is  intended  for  an 
intelligent  class  of  Biblical  students,  I  do  so  with  less 
reluctance.  I  may  note  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
Lectures  themselves  which  cannot  be  understood  by  an 
intelligent  English  reader,  even  though  unacquainted  with 
Hebrew.  The  want  of  uniformity  in  expressing  Hebrew 
proper  names  in  English  will,  I  hope,  be  excused  as  it  has 
in  great  measure  arisen  from  a  desire  to  use  forms  familiar 
to  the  English  reader. 

It  may  be  well  to  observe  that  in  some  of  my  remarks 
I  have  had  in  view  a  class  of  prophetical  interpreters,  who 
have,  indeed,  produced  no  work  of  learning  which  could 
be  referred  to,  but  whose  views,  put  forth  in  pamphlets 
and  popular  discourses  have  obtained  currency  in  certain 
quarters. 

In  order  to  enable  the  work  to  be  published  with  as  little 
delay  as  possible,  it  was  sent  to  the  press  in  sections  before 
the  whole  manuscript  was  completed.  Its  publication  would 
necessarily  have  been  delayed  for  more  than  a  twelvemonth, 
had  any  other  course  been  adopted.  This  plan,  how- 
ever, has  been  attended  with  peculiar  difficulties.  Some  cor- 
rections will  be  found  in  the  translation,  and  especially  in 
the  critical  and  grammatical  commentary,  e.g.  on  ch.  iii.  3, 
iv.  7,  X.  II,  xi.  8,  II.  In  the  crit.  comm.  on  ch.  iv.  7, 
I  have  corrected  a  mistake  wrongly  imputed  by  me  to 
Wiinsche  in  his  treatise  on  Die  Leiden  des  Mcssias.     Con- 


xii  PREFACE. 

siderable   additions    on   various   points   have   been  made  in 
that  part  of  the  work. 

I  desire  to  return  my  warmest  thanks  to  Prof.  WiUiam 
Wright  of  Cambridge,  and  Prof.  Dr.  Franz  DeHtzsch  of 
Leipzig,  for  their  great  kindness  in  revising  the  proof-sheets 
of  this  book  while  passing  through  the  press,  and  for  the 
valuable  suggestions  made  by  them  which  have  been  in- 
corporated in  the  work.  Dr.  Delitzsch  has  also  very  kindly 
verified  for  me  the  references  to  the  old  Jewish  literature. 
These  scholars  are,  however,  by  no  means  to  be  held  respon- 
sible for  any  of  the  views  adopted,  or  for  any  critical 
errors  which  the  work  may  contain.  My  old  friend,  the 
Rev.  Wm.  Macllwaine,  D.D.,  Incumbent  of  St.  George's, 
Belfast,  and  Canon  of  St.  Patrick's  Cathedral,  Dublin,  has 
also  kindly  revised  the  proof-sheets. 

Belfast,  Jan.  2$th,  1879. 


■•■]   •   tf  tt   f   -f   - .4.) 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Introduction  : — 

§  I,  Notices  of  the  Prophet  Zechariah  .  .  xv. 
§  2.  The  Name  of  the  Prophet  .  .  .  .  xx. 
§  3.  The  Date  of  his  earlier  Predictions  .  .  xxi. 
§  4.  External  Evidence  as  to  the  Unity  of  the 

Book xxii. 

§  5.  Sketch  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  Critical' 

Opinion  on  the  Question  of  its  Integrity    xxv. 
§  6.  The  Differences  between  the  First  and  Second 

Portions  of  the  Book xxviii. 

§  7.  Considerations  in  favour  of  its  Integrity  and 

Genuineness xxxv. 

§  8.  Apparatus  Criticus xlii. 

New  Translation  of  the  Book  of  Zechariah     .         .     xlix. 

CHAPTER    I. 

The  First  Three  Visions  (Zech.  i.  ii.)        ....        3 

CHAPTER   II. 

The  Fourth  Vision  (Zech.  iii.) — Joshua  before  the  Angel,     45 

CHAPTER   III. 

The  Fifth  Vision — The  Golden  Candlestick  (Zech.  iv.)       81 

CHAPTER   IV. 

The  Sixth  Vision — The  Flying  Roll,  and  the  Woman 

in   the  Ephah  (Zech.  v.) 105 


XIV  CONTEXTS. 

PAGE 

CHAPTER   V. 

The  Seventh  Vj«n — The  Four  Chariots  (Zech.  vi.  i-S)      122 

CHAPTER   VI. 
The  Crowning  of  the  High  Priest  (Zech.  vi.  9-15).        .     145 

CHAPTER  Vn. 

The    Deputation    from   Bethel.— Addresses   of    Zech- 

ARiAH  TO  THE  People  (Zech.  vii.  viii.) ....     161 

CHAPTER  VHI. 

The  Preparation   of  the  Land. — The  Coming   of   the 

King  (Zech.  ix.) 199 

CHAPTER    IX. 

The    War    of  the  Sons  of  Zion. — The  "Lost  Tribes" 

(Zech.  X.) 265 

CHAPTER  X. 

The  Good  Shepherd  and  his  Rejection — The  Evil  Shep- 
herd AND  his  Doom  (Zech.  xi.) 299 

CHAPTER   XI. 

The  Trials  and  Victory  of  Israel. — The  Great  Mourn- 
ing (Zech.  xii.) 355 

CHAPTER  XII. 

The  Reaction   against   False   Prophets. — The    Great 

Transgression  (Zech.  xiii.) 409 

CHAPTER   XIII. 

The  Eschatology  of  Zechariah,  or  "  The  Last  Things  " 
as  seen  in  the  light  of  the  Old  Dispensation 
(Zech.  xiv.) 449 

Critical  and  Grammatical  Commentary  .         .         .  525 

Index  of  Texts  Illustrated 599 

General  Index    603 


INTRODUCTION. 


§   I.  Notices  of  tJic  Prophet  ZecJuiriah. 

According  to  the  statement  in  chap.  i.  i,  Zechariah  was  the 
son  of  Berechiah  and  the  grandson  of  Iddo  (see  crit.  comm.). 
He  was  called  the  son  of  Iddo  as  well  as  the  son  of  Berechiah, 
probably  because  the  latter  died  at  a  comparatively  early  age, 
or  was  a  man  of  little  note.     We  assume  in  this  statement  that 
the  Iddo  alluded  to  in  the  book  of  Zechariah,  and  whose  son 
the   prophet  Zechariah  is  called  in  Ezra  v.  i  and  vi.  14,  is  to 
be  identified  with  the  Iddo  mentioned  in  Neh.  xii.  4,  who  was 
one  of  the  priests  that  went  up  from  Babylon  with  Zerubbabel 
and  Joshua,  and  whose  son   Zechariah  is  also  spoken  of  in 
Neh.  xii.  16.     It  is  unnecessary,  with  Jerome  and  Cyrill,  to 
have  recourse  to  conjecture  in    order  to  explain  the  simple 
fact  that  the  same  person  is  styled  both  "  son  of  Berechiah  " 
and   "  son  of  Iddo."      For  the  Hebrew  word    for  "  son  "  is 
frequently  used  in  the  sense  of  "grandson,"  for  which  latter 
idea  there  is  no  special  term  in   Hebrew.     There  is,   there- 
fore, no  cause  to  regard  the  words  "  son  of  Berechiah  "  as  an 
interpolation.     The  conjecture  of  Knobel  and  von  Ortenberg, 
approved  of  by   Bleek   and    Wellhausen,    namely,    that   the 
book   of    Zechariah    is    made    up    of  the   writings    of  three 
distinct  prophets,  one    of  them  Zechariah  the  son  of  Iddo, 
who  lived  after  the  captivity,  and  another  Zechariah  the  son 
of  Berechiah  or  Jeberechiah,  a  contemporary  of  Isaiah,  se- 
lected by  that  prophet  to  act  with  Uriah  the  high  priest  as 


xvi  INTRODUCTION.     §  I. 

a  ■witness  (Isaiah  viii.   2),  is  ingenious,  but  is  entirely  based 
on  a  denial  of  the  unity  of  the  book. 

Zechariah  appears  to  have  been  still  young  when  called 
to  fulfil  the  office  of  a  prophet.  It  is,  indeed,  a  mistake  to 
suppose  him  to  be  specially  referred  to  in  chap.  ii.  8  (E.  V. 
chap.  ii.  4)  as  "this  young  man/'  though  that  view  has 
been  taken  b\'  many  commentators  Although,  however, 
that  passage  ought  to  be  explained  otherwise,  the  youth  of 
Zechariah  may  be  fairly  inferred  from  the  fact  that  his 
grandfather,  Iddo,  is  mentioned  as  a  person  of  some  im- 
portance in  the  da}-s  of  Joshua  the  high  priest,  having  been 
one  of  the  priests  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua 
from  Babylon,  and  that  Zechariah,  is  spoken  of  as  having 
prophesied  during  the  high  priesthood  of  Joshua,  most 
probably  in  the  lifetime  of  his  grandfather  Iddo  ;  while  in 
the  days  of  Joiakim,  the  successor  of  Joshua  in  the  high 
priest's  office  (Nch.  xii.  10),  Zechariah  is  mentioned  as  being 
then  the  head  of  the  family.  His  father  Berechiah  must, 
therefore,  have  been  already  dead.  But  if  Zechariah  en- 
tered on  his  prophetic  work  during  the  lifetime  of  his  grand- 
father, he  must  have  been  young  at  the  time  ;  and  his 
grandfather  being  at  that  period  the  head  of  the  family, 
Zechariah  was  naturally  termed  "  the  son  of  Iddo." 

Nothing  is  really  known  regarding  the  length  of  time 
during  which  he  acted  as  prophet.  The  common  tradition 
that  he  lived  to  a  good  old  age  had  probably  some  historical 
basis  of  which  we  now  know  nothing.  According  to  Jewish 
tradition,  mentioned  by  Rashi  and  Abarbanel,  Haggai  and 
Zechariah  were  members  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  to  whose 
labours  the  Jews  ascribe  the  reorganization  of  the  Jewish 
Church  and  the  arrangement  of  the  Canon  of  Scripture. 
The  line  of  succession  from  the  time  of  Moses  is  said  in  the 
Aboth  of  R.  Nathan,  to  have  been  Joshua,  the  Elders.  Judges 
and  Trophets,   Ilaggai   and   Zechariah,   and,  lasth',   the  men 


INTRODUCTION.      §   I.  Xvii 

of  the  Great  Synagogue,  which  the  Mishnah  regards  as  having 
consisted  of  those  teachers  who  received  the  tradition  from  the 
prophets,  and  preserved  it  down  to  the  time  of  Simon  the  Just.^ 
The  accounts  given  of  the  prophet  in  the  early  Christian 
writers  of  the  4th  and  5th  centuries  cannot  be  regarded  as 
probable,  being  too  plainly  legendary  in  their  character,  and 
contradicting,  as  they  do,  clear  deductions  from  the  notices  in 
the  canonical  books.     The  Pseudo-Epiphanius  {De  Proph.  21) 
says  that  Zechariah  was  a  very  old  man  when  he  came  from 
Babylon,  in  which  place  he  confirmed  the  prophecies  which 
he  delivered  by  many  signs.     He  is  said  to  have  prophesied 
to  Jozadak  the  birth  of  his  son  Joshua,  and  to  have  predicted 
that  that  son  would  discharge  the  office  of  priest  in  Jerusa- 
lem.    He  is  also  said  to  have  foretold  to  Salathiel  the  birth 
of  Zerubbabel,  and  to  have  informed  him  of  his  son's  future 
career.     He  predicted  to  Cyrus  the  victory  which  he  after- 
wards obtained  over  Croesus,  as  well  as  what  Cyrus  accom- 
plished at  Jerusalem.     He  died  in  Judsea  in  extreme  old  age, 
and  was  buried  in  a  tomb  near  that  of  Haggai.     Such  is  the 
account  given  by  Epiphanius.     That  given  by  Dorotheus  is 
almost  identical.     The  latter  adds  that  the  place  of  the  pro- 
phet's sepulture  was  near  Eleutheropolis,  and  states  that  he 
was  the  Zechariah  the  son  of  Berechiah  mentioned  by  Isaiah 
in  chap.  viii.     This  seems  to  have  been  the  view  of  the  Jews, 
though  it  involved  a  gross  anachronism  as  they  understood  it. 
For  according  to  some  traditions  the  same  Zechariah  pro- 
phesied in  the  second  temple  (see  Furst's  Kanon  des  A.  T.  nacJi 
den   Ueberlieferungen   in    Talmud  u.   Midrasck,  pp.  44,  45). 
The  same  tradition  is  found  in  Hesychius,  whose  words  are  in 
several  clauses  identical  with  those  of  Epiphanius.     Hesy- 
chius states  in  addition  that  the  prophet  was  of  the  tribe  of 

'  On  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  see  Buxtorfs  Tiberias,  cap.  x.  ;  Jost's 
Geschichte  des  Isr.  Volkes  ;  and  Taylor's  Sayings  of  the  yewish  Fathers  (Cambridge 
University  Press,  1877). 

b 


xviii  INTRODUCTION.      §  I. 

Levi,  and  was  born  in  Gilcad.  The  name  Zcchariah  is  ex- 
plained by  him  as  signifying  /ji^vvm  'Ty\r[(TTov,  which  is  pos- 
sible, or  Nt.Kr]Ti]<i  \eovTo<;,  which  is  impossible.  Isidore  of 
Spain  {7th  century)  says  of  Haggai,  "Aggceus  natus  in 
Babylonia,  juveniculus  Hierusalem  venit,  asdificationem  tem- 
pli  ex  parte  conspexit.  Hie  juxta  sacerdotum  monumenta 
gloriose  sepultus  quiescit."  Of  Zechariah  he  adds  briefly, 
"  Zacharias,  filius  Barachia^,  cum  eodem  Agga^o  et  eodem 
tempore  prophetavit." 

Kohler  observes  that  a  further  addition  to  the  story  is 
found  in  the  Codex  Augustanus  of  Epiphanius,  the  prophet 
being  therein  identified  with  Zechariah  the  son  of  Jehoiada 
the  priest  (called  Zacharias  the  son  of  Barachias  in  I\Iatt. 
xxiii.  35),  who  was  slain  at  the  command  of  Joash  between 
the  temple  and  the  altar  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  20-22),  who  was 
buried  by  his  fellow-priests  in  the  tomb  of  his  father  Jehoi- 
ada ;  "  and  from  that  time,"  states  the  codex,  "  there  were 
•many  wonderful  appearances  in  the  sanctuary  {repara  iv 
TO)  vaS  TToXXa  (fjavTaariooSr]),  and  the  priests  were  not  able 
to  behold  the  sight  of  the  angels  of  God  [the  cherubim 
over  the  mercy-seat?],  nor  to  give  responses  from  the  oracle 
{oure  Bovvao  ')(^pi-ja jxoix;  e/c  roi)  Sa^r]p,  Heb.  1^^'7).  iio^'  answers 
to  the  people  as  formerly  by  means  of  the  visible  things," 
Slo,  tmv  8?;A,&)i/,  the  Urim  and  Thummim. 

Though  Chrysostom  and  Jerome  have  identified  Zechariah 
the  prophet  with  the  martyr  Zechariah  mentioned  by  our 
Lord,  it  is  certain  that  the  identification  cannot  be  correct. 
Had  such  a  murder  taken  place  after  the  Restoration  from 
the  captivity,  some  allusion  would  no  doubt  have  been  made  to 
it  in  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  or  in  the  prophecies  of 
Malachi,  or  the  writings  of  Josephus.  It  is  unlikely  that  two 
prophets  of  the  same  name  should  have  perished  in  the  same 
manner  and  place,  one  before  the  exile  and  the  other  after  it. 
It  is,  indeed,  a  curious  fact  that  Josephus  {Be//.  Jud.  iv.  5,  §  4), 


INTRODUCTION.      §  I.  xix 

relates  the  murder  of  a  Zechariah  the  son  of  Baruch  which 
took  place  in  the  temple,  shortly  before  the  destruction  of  the 
city  by  the  Romans.  But  it  is,  however,  far  easier  to  explain 
the  insertion  of  the  words  "son  of  Barachias"  in  St.  Matthew's 
Gospel  as  an  interpolation,  or  even  as  an  inaccuracy  (on  the 
part  of  the  evangelist  or  his  copyist,  not  on  the  part  of  our 
Lord).  Berechiah  may  also  have  been  a  second  name  of 
Jehoiada.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  Jerome  in  his  Comm. 
on  Matt,  xxiii.  35,  mentions  that  in  the  Gospel  of  the  Naza- 
renes  "  son  of  Jehoiada  "  was  found  instead  of  "  son  of  Bara- 
chiah."  There  is  little  doubt,  however,  that  our  Lord  in  his 
solemn  words  alludes  first  to  the  cry  of  Abel's  blood  from 
the  ground,  mentioned  in  Genesis  iv.  10,  and  secondly  to  the 
dying  prayer  for  vengeance  of  the  martyr  Zechariah  the  son 
of  Jehoiada,  recorded  in  2  Chron.  xxiv.  22.  In  the  Targum  on 
Lamentations  (chap.  ii.  20),  Zechariah  the  son  of  Jehoiada  is 
called  "Zechariah  the  son  of  Iddo,  the  high  priest  and  faithful 
prophet,"  and  his  death  is  said  to  have  taken  place  on  the 
great  Day  of  Atonement.  The  Targum  regards  the  slaughter 
of  the  priests  and  prophets  in  the  sanctuary  by  the  Chal- 
dseans  as  a  punishment  for  that  great  sin.  To  the  same 
effect  are  the  stories  related  in  the  Talmud  Yerushalmi 
(Taanith,  69,  col.  i,  2)  and  in  the  Talmud  Babli  (Sanhedrin, 
96,  2),  quoted  by  Lightfoot  in  his  Horce  Heb.  on  Matt.  1.  c. 

Haggai  and  Zechariah  are  mentioned  in  the  LXX.  version 
along  with  David  in  the  superscription  of  Ps.  cxxxviii.  (LXX. 
cxxxvii.),  ■\lra\fio<;  ru)Aavlh,  ^A'yyaCov  koI  Za')(ap[ov,  and  Psalms 
cxlv.  to  cxlviii.  are  distinctly  assigned  to  Haggai  and  Zecha- 
hria  (AXkrfKovia.  Ayyacov  koI  Za^^apiov).  The  Arabic  ver- 
sion generally  agrees  in  this  with  the  LXX.  In  some  MSS. 
of  the  Itala  the  superscription  of  Psalm  Ixv.  (Itala  and  LXX. 
Ixiv.)  is :  "  In  finem,  psalmus  David,  canticum  Jeremiae  et 
Aggaei  deverbo  peregrinationis,  quando  incipiebant  proficisci." 
Similarly  according  to  the  Vulgate  and  Itala,  Ps.  cxii.  (Vulg. 


XX  INTRODUCTION.      §  2. 

Ps.  cxi.)  is  entitled,  "Alleluia,  Reversionis  Aggnei  et  Zecha- 
ria;,"  and  Ps.  cxKm.  (Vulg.  cxlv.)  is  ascribed  to  them,  "  Alleluia, 
Agga^i  et  Zechariai."  In  the  Syriac  version  (the  Peschitto) 
Psalms  cxxvi.  and  cxxvii.  (Syr.  cxxv.,  cxxvi)  are  not  said, 
indeed,  to  have  been  written  by  those  prophets  (Ps.  cxxvii., 
Syr.  cxxvi.,  being  distinctly  ascribed  to  David),  but  they 
are  said  to  speak  of  these  prophets  of  the  Restoration.  So 
Psalms  cxxiii.  and  cxxviii.  (Syr.  cxxii.,  cxxvii.)  are  said  to 
refer  to  Zerubbabel ;  Ps.  cxxx.  (Syr.  cxxix.)  to  Nehemiah  ; 
and  Ps.  cxxxi.  (Syr.  cxxx.)  to  Joshua  the  high  priest.  But 
Psalms  cxlvi.,  cxlvii.,  and  cxlviii.  (Syr.  Ps.  cxlv.,  cxlvi.,  cxlvii., 
cxlviii., — Ps.  cxlvii.  in  the  Hebrew  forming  two  Psalms,  cxlvi. 
cxlvii.,  in  the  Syriac  version)  are  distinctly  ascribed  to  the 
joint  authorship  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah.  There  is  a  refer- 
ence made  to  the  seinscriptions  in  the  notice  of  the  Pseudo- 
Epiphanius,  which,  however,  is  not  only  obscure  in  itself,  but 
the  text  of  which  is  also  confused  and  uncertain  (see  Kohler, 
Comm.  on  Haggai,  p.  33).  It  is  as  follows  :  kcu  avTO'i  (!A'y'yalo<;) 
e^lraWev  eKei  {ev  'lepovaaXrifi)  TrpcoTa  aWijXovca,  o  epixrjveverai 
alveawfiev  to5  i^oivn  &eu>'  afii]v,  0  eVrt  jevocTo,  yipotro.  eKel 
ovv  diridave,  kol  iTd(f)7j  TrXrjalov  rwv  lepecov  iv86^oi<;.  816 
XijofieV  dX\i]\ovia,  6  ecrrtv  v/xvo<;  ^A<y<yaiov  koX  Za')(ap[ov. 

§  2.   The  Name  of  the  Prophet. 

The  name  Zechariah  has  been  explained  by  Jerome  to 
signify  p^vi^puT]  Kvplov,  memoria  Doviini,  "  memory  of  the 
Lord."  According  to  this  explanation  the  first  part  of  the 
compound  is  regarded  as  a  noun.  In  that  case  the  punctu- 
ation would  rather  have  been,  nnDT  or  better  H"!!)?,  after  the 
analogy  of  rT^fp/n  and  "nifpiii.  The  longer  form  IHpDT 
occurs  in  2  Kings  xv.  8  (the  shorter  form  being  used  of  the 
same  king  in  2  Kings  xiv.  29),  and  in  other  places.  The 
name  is  a  very  common  one,  and  upwards  of  twenty  persons 


INTRODUCTION.      §  3.  xxi 

who  bore  it  are  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament,  It 
is,  however,  better  to  regard  iy  as  a  verb,  with  H''  as  its 
subject,  in  which  case  the  name  would  signify  ^^  whom  Jali 
remembers^  Some  indeed,  like  Abarbanel^  have  considered 
rr*  as  the  object  of  the  verb  ;  in  which  case  the  name  would 
mean  "  tvJio  reinembers  Jah"  and  would,  therefore,  be  equiva- 
lent to  the  Greek  WLvqcxlBeo's,  and  analogous  to  TifxbQeo'^.  But 
in  Hebrew  proper  names  compounded  with  IT'  and  a  verb 
in  the  3rd  person  sing,  kal,  the  sacred  name  is  the  subject 
of  the  verb,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  treat  this  as  an  ex- 
ception. Some  render  more  generally  "  Jah  remembers','  or, 
is  mindful  of  us  ;  compare  Gen.  xxx.  22  ;  i  Sam.  i.  11,  19  ; 
and  the  proper  name  "IDTi"*  in  2  Kings  xii.  22. 

The  explanation  of  Marck,  namely,  that  the  word  is  com- 
pounded with  "IDT,  a  male,  used  in  the  sense  of  a  hero,  as  if 
meaning  "  man  of  JaJiaveJi','  must  be  rejected,  for  ")DT  is  not 
found  in  that  signification. 

The  name  of  the  prophet  has  been  sometimes  thought 
to  stand  in  close  connexion  with  his  prophecies,  and  the 
names  of  other  prophets  have  been  similarly  interpreted. 
Most  of  these  coincidences  rest,  however,  upon  mere  fancy  ; 
and,  with  respect  to  the  name  of  Zechariah,  Kohler  has 
observed  that  it  cannot  be  shown  to  have  any  special  con- 
nexion with  his  prophecies.  Many  other  names,  such  as 
Daniel  or  Isaiah,  would  have  been  equally  suitable  to  the 
subject  matter  of  the  predictions  contained  in  the  book. 

§  3.    The  Date  of  his  Earliest  Predictions. 

The  circumstances  during  which  Haggai  and  Zechariah 
discharged  their  prophetic  office  are  fully  stated  in  Ezra  v.,  vi., 
and  need  not  be  here  repeated.  It  may,  however,  be  well 
to  observe  that  it  is  highly  probable,  from  a  comparison  of 
Ezra  V.  I,  2  with  Haggai  i.,  that  Zechariah  acted  as  a  pro- 


xxii  INTRODUCTION.      §  4. 

phet  some  months  previous  to  the  date  of  the  earliest 
written  prophecies  contained  in  this  book  ;  for  Ezra  states 
that  it  was  in  consequence  of  the  prophecies  delivered  by 
Haggai  and  Zechariah  two  months  before  the  date  of  the 
first  prophecy  of  the  latter  given  in  chap.  i.  7,  that  the  Jews 
re-commenced  the  work  of  the  restoration  of  the  temple, 
which,  in  consequence  of  the  opposition  of  the  adversaries 
of  Judah  and  Benjamin,  had  ceased  for  many  years.  It  is, 
however,  possible  that  the  narrative  of  Ezra  merely  mentions 
Zechariah  with  Haggai,  because  he  was  shortly  after  asso- 
ciated with  the  latter  prophet,  without  intending  absolutely 
to  state  that  both  prophets  actually  prophesied  to  the  Jews 
some  time  previous  to  the  resumption  of  the  work  on  the 
temple. 

The  earliest  prediction  of  Zechariah  contained  in  his  book 
is  that  delivered  in  the  eighth  month  of  the  second  year  of 
Darius  ;  the  latest  dated  prophecy  is  that  in  the  ninth  month 
of  the  fourth  year  of  Darius.  The  prophecies  which  follow, 
even  to  the  close  of  the  book,  have  no  date  prefixed  to  them  ; 
and  if  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  genuine  predictions  of  our 
prophet,  they  must  be  considered  as  delivered  several  years 
later  than  his  earlier  predictions. 

§  4.  External  Evidence  as  to  the   Unity  of  tJie  Book. 

No  doubt  has  ever  been  entertained  concerning  the 
genuineness  of  the  first  portion  of  the  book,  namely,  that 
consisting  of  chaps,  i.-viii.  Almost  all  of  the  prophecies 
therein  contained  have  inscriptions  mentioning  the  name  of 
the  writer  and  the  date  at  which  the  individual  prophecy 
was  delivered.  The  portion  which  succeeds  (chaps,  ix.-xiv. 
inclusive)  contains  no  mention  whatever  of  its  author,  nor 
are  the  dates  specified  at  which  its  several  parts  were  com- 
posed.    The  prophecies  of  the  earlier  portion  of  the  book 


INTRODUCTION.      §  4.  xxiil 

contain  unmistakeable  references  to  the  circumstances  of  the 
Jewish  people  at  the  time  they  were  dehvered,  while  no  such 
clear  and  distinct  references  are  made  in  the  second  part. 
External  evidence,  however,  is  wholly  in  favour,  both  of  the 
unity  and  genuineness  of  the  book.  The  tradition  of  the 
Synagogue  is  clear  on  this  point,  as  well  as  the  testimony 
of  the  Church.  No  traces  are  to  be  found  in  any  ancient 
writings  of  any  hesitation  to  ascribe  the  second  portion,  as 
well  as  the  first,  to  the  post-exilian  Zechariah. 

Fiirst  in  his  interesting  work  Der  Kanon  des  A.   T.  nach 
den  Ueberlieferitngen  vi  Talmud  tmd  Midrasch,  Leipzig,  1868 
(though    his   own   views   on   the  point   as   set   forth    in    his 
GescJiichte  der  bibl.  Literatur,  Leipzig,  1870,  are  in  harmony 
with  the  most  advanced  modern  views),  gives  the  following 
interesting  sketch  of  the  mode  in  which  the  Synagogue  in- 
terpreted the  second  portion  of  the  book,  which  it  did  not 
scruple   to    assign    to    Zechariah    as  well  as   the  first.     The 
Talmud  and  Midrash  rightly  considered  the  second  portion 
to  contain  in  the  main  a  prediction  of  Jewish  history  in  the 
times  after  Alexander  the  Great,  with  occasional  references 
(as  in  chap.  ix.  9,  10)  to  Messianic  days.    The  countries  men- 
tioned in  chap.  ix.  were  regarded  as  destined  to  lose  their 
independence  and  to  be  brought  under  Jewish  rule,  while  at 
the  same  time  the  sacred  temple  at  Jerusalem  was  to  be  pro- 
tected against  all  hostile  attack.     The  eleventh  verse  of  that 
chapter  was  supposed  to  refer  to  the  Jewish  captives  carried 
off  by  the  Greeks  (the  Seleucidian  monarchs)  ;  and  the  war  of 
the  sons  of  Zion  against  Greece  was  rightly  considered  to  be 
that  so  successfully  waged  by  the  Jews  against  their  Greek 
oppressors  during  the  Maccabean  period.     Even  the  name 
AssJiiir  in  chap.  x.  was  regarded  as  signifying  Syria  under 
the  Seleucidian  monarchs,  and  Egypt  as  meaning  that  king- 
dom under  the  Ptolemies,  while  Judah  denoted  the  Israelites 
in  Judaea,  and  Ephraim  those  living  in  Galilee,  Syria,  Phoe- 


xxiv  INTRODUCTION.      §  4. 

nicia,  and  beyond  Jordan.  Similarly  the  allegor)'-  of  chap. 
xi.,  and  the  destruction  of  the  three  shepherds,  were  con- 
sidered as  referring  to  events  which  occurred  in  the  Grecian 
period.  Such  views,  however,  as  to  the  interpretation  of 
the  book  did  not  interfere  with  the  distinct  and  unvar^'ing 
testimony  given  by  the  Synagogue  to  its  unity  and  genuine- 
ness. 

It  has  sometimes  been  asserted  that  there  is  at  least  one 
remarkable  exception  to  this  uniformity  of  external  evidence  ; 
that  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  {Didascalia  sen  Constitt. 
Apostoloruvi,  ii.  53)  in  quoting  a  passage  (chap.  viii.  17)  from  the 
book  of  Zechariah  ascribe  its  authorship  to  Jeremiah.  Some 
portions  of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  may  possibly  be 
of  the  third  century,  but  that  work  in  its  extant  form  appears 
to  be  several  centuries  later.  The  ascription  of  the  passage 
in  question  to  Jeremiah  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  slip  of 
memory  on  the  part  of  the  writer  or  his  copyist,  as  the  pas- 
sage referred  to  is  from  that  portion  of  Zechariah  the  gen- 
uineness of  which  is  admitted  on  all  sides.  The  Apostolical 
Constitutions  contain,  however,  another  passage  from  this 
book  which  is  distinctly  referred  to  Zechariah,  that  passage 
being  from  the  second  portion  (chap.  ix.  9),  the  genuineness 
of  which  has  been  disputed  in  modern  times.  Consequently 
the  Apost.  Const,  cannot  be  viewed  as  forming  any  exception 
to  the  uniformity  of  the  evidence  on  this  head.  Many  similar 
errors  in  the  quotations  of  O.  T.  passages  occur  in  the 
writings  of  the  ancient  Fathers.  Compare  the  quotations 
found  in  Justin  Martyr,  referred  to  in  the  note  on  p.  338.  It 
is  to  be  observed  that  the  part  of  the  passage  in  the  Apost. 
Const,  which  refers  to  Jeremiah  does  not  occur  in  all  the 
forms  in  which  the  text  of  those  Constitutions  has  been  pre- 
served, and  hence  it  may  be  an  interpolation.  The  words  are: 
"  How  often,  therefore,  hast  thou  remitted  to  thy  brother, 
that  thou  art  unwilling  to  do  it  now .'  when  thou  hast  also 


INTRODUCTION.      §  5.  XXV 

heard    Jeremiah    saying,    '  Do  not  any  of   you    impute   the 
wickedness  of  his  neighbour  in  your  hearts.'"  ^ 


§  5.  Sketch  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  Critical  Opinion  on 
the  Question  of  the  Integrity  of  the  Book. 

Doubts  respecting  the  authorship  of  the  second  portion  of 
the  book  of  Zechariah  were  first  expressed  by  Mede  in  his 
Epistles  {Works,  pp.  'j'^6,  833).  These  doubts  were  in  his 
case  originally  and  mainly  based  upon  the  fact  that  the 
passage  from  the  second  part  of  Zechariah  (chap.  xi.  12,  13)  is 
ascribed  to  Jeremiah  in  Matt,  xxvii.  9.  Having  once  begun 
to  conjecture  that  it  was  likely  to  be  found  on  careful  exam- 
ination that  the  writers  of  the  New  Test,  actually  corrected 
errors  which  had  crept  into  the  Hebrew  text  previous  to 
their  day,  Mede  naturally  looked  about  for  grounds  on  which 
to  defend  his  opinion,  and  ultimately  was  led  to  maintain  that 
the  later  chapters  of  Zechariah  contained  in  themselves  indi- 
cations of  having  been  composed  previous  to  the  Babylonish 
captivity. 

Mede's  opinions  were'  adopted  by  several  English  scholars  : 
by  Hammond  (1653),  Kidder  (1700),  Whiston  (1722),  and 
later  by  Seeker  and  Newcome.  All  these,  however,  mainly 
rested  on  the  testimony  of  Matthew's  gospel,  and  showed 
themselves  disposed  on  the  most  trivial  grounds  to  charge 
the  Jewish  scribes  with  having  seriously  tampered  with  the 
text  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  was  on  such  grounds  that 
they  were  led  to  ascribe  the  second  part  of  the  book  ot 
Zechariah,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  to  Jeremiah.     These 

*  TTOffd/fts  oZv  ijdr)  a<pTJKas  ry  aSeXcpqi  crov,  'Iva  fj.ri  deXriffrjs  avTU  d4>i.€vai,  Kal  vvv  ; 
kclItol  aKoiaa^  tou  'lepe/xCov  \eyovTOS,  &tl  ?/catrros  rriv  KaKiav  tou  irXrjaiov  avTov  fiq 
Xoyl^ecrde  ev  rah  Kapdiais  vfj-Qv.  See  the  text  in  Bunsen's  Christianity  and  Man- 
kind, vol.  vi.,  being  vol.  ii.  of  the  Analeda  Ante-Nicana,  p.  117.  The  passage 
from  KairoL  onwards  does  not  occur  in  all  the  Greek  forms,  but  is  given  by  Bunsen 
after  the  more  extended  version. 


xxvi  INTRODUCTION.      §  5. 

opinions  were  strongly  opposed  by  various  scholars,  especially 
by  Blayney  (1797),  and  were  ultimately  regarded  in  England 
with  little  favour. 

The  doubts  expressed  by  English  scholars  were,  however, 
transplanted  to  German  soil,  and  Fliigge  in  1784  opposed  the 
traditional  view  of  the  unity  of  the  book,  and  was  followed  by 
Seller,  G.  L.  Bauer,  Augusti  and  Doederlcin.  J.  D.  Michaelis 
also  expressed  himself  doubtful  as  to  the  unity  of  the  book. 
Bauer,  however,  though  inclined  to  hold  that  the  second  part 
was  not  the  composition  of  Zechariah,  regarded  that  portion 
in  his  Klcinen  Prophctcn  (1786,  1790)  as  containing  a  pre- 
diction of  the  times  before  and  after  the  Maccabcan  era.  He 
appears  to  have  modified  his  views  at  a  later  period. 

Eichhorn  in  his  Einlciticng  followed  in  the  main  this  in- 
terpretation, and  considered  the  second  portion  to  contain  a 
clear  description  of  the  times  subsequent  to  Alexander  the 
Great,  and,  therefore,  to  have  been  composed  by  an  author 
at  a  time  considerably  later  than  that  of  Zechariah.  Very 
similar  views  are  expressed  by  Corrodi,  and  H.  E.  G.  Paulus, 
as  also  later  by  Gramberg  (1830),  Vatke  (1835),  and  still 
more  recently  by  Stahelin,  Abraham  Geiger,  and  Bottcher. 
Stahelin,  however,  defends  the  unity  of  the  book. 

Other  opinions,  however,  began  to  prevail  in  Germany  after 
the  publication  of  V>Qx\ho\<\'C?,  Ei7ileitung\\\  18 14.  The  con- 
jecture there  put  forward,  that  Zechariah  the  son  of  Jebere- 
chiah  was  the  author  of  a  part  of  the  second  portion  (see  pp. 
XV.,  xvii.),  received  the  approval  of  Gesenius  in  his  Comm.  on 
Isaiah  ;  and  other  scholars  followed  in  his  wake,  who,  how- 
ever widely  they  may  have  differed  in  details,  agreed  in 
thinking  that  the  author  or  authors  of  the  second  portion 
lived  at  some  date  previous  to  the  Babylonish  captivity.  The 
most  important  advocates  of  this  view  were  Forberg  (1824) ; 
Rosenmuller  in  the  second  edition  of  his  Scholia  (1828)  ; 
Hitzig,  first  in  the  Studicu  and  Kritikcn  (1830),  and  afterwards 


INTRODUCTION.      §  5.  xxvii 

in  his  Ziv'dlf  kl.  Propheten  (ist  ed.  1838,  3rd  1863);  Kno- 
bel  del'-  PropJictismiis  dcr  Hebi'der,  1837  ;  Maurer,  Coinni. 
Gramm.-Crit.  in  V.  T.,  vol.  ii.,  1836;  Bleek,  in  the  Stud,  tind 
Krit.,  1852,  and  in  his  Eiiileitiing  (2te  Ausg.,  1865)  ;  Ewald  in 
his  Proph.  des  A.  B.  (2te  Ausg.  1867,  1868)  ;  v.  Ortenberg 
(1859) ;  and  Bunsen  in  various  works,  especially  in  his  Bibel- 
werk,  vol.  ii.  {Die  Prophete}t),  i860.  Similar  views  have  been 
advocated  by  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson  in  his  Introduction  to 
the  Old  Test.,  1863  ;  by  Dean  Stanley  in  his  Lectures  on  the 
Jezvish  Church ;  and  by  Wellhausen  in  his  revised  edition  of 
Bleek's  Einleititng  (Berlin,  1878).  Other  eminent  scholars, 
as  Herzfeld,  Hupfeld,  Thenius,  Movers,  Schrader,  have  also 
expressed  like  opinions,  though  they  have  not  written  at  any 
length  on  the  question. 

Notwithstanding  the  boastful  language  made  use  of  by 
some,  as  if  the  contest  had  already  resulted  in  a  decisive 
victory  for  the  scholars  of  the  modern  critical  school,  "  adJinc 
sub  judice  lis  est!'  The  unity  and  post-exilian  origin  of 
the  book  have  been  ably  defended  by  Koster  [Meleteniata 
Critica,  etc.,  18 18),  de  Wette  in  the  latest  editions  of  his 
Einleitung,  Jahn,  Burger  [Etudes  excg.  et  critiq.  sur  le  proph. 
ZacJi.,  Strassburg,  1841),  Umbreit,  Havernick,  Hengstenberg, 
Stahelin,  von  Hofmann,  Ebrard,  Sandrock,  Kliefoth,  Keil, 
Delitzsch,  Kohler,  Lange,  Pusey,  and  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
scholars,  Theiner,  Schegg,  and  Reinke.  Prof,  (now  Dean) 
J.  J.  S.  Perowne  in  SniitJis  Bibl.  Dictionary,  and  after  him 
Drake  in  vol.  vi.  of  the  Speaker  s  Commentary,  can  scarcely 
be  said  to  have  arrived  at  any  definite  conclusion  on  the 
subject.  Henderson,  and  the  American  scholar  Cham- 
bers, in  his  comm.  attached  to  the  English  translation  of 
Lange's  Bibelwerk,  defend  the  traditional  view.  Just  as  able 
scholars  are  to  be  found  in  the  ranks  of  the  defenders  as  in 
those  of  the  opposers  of  the  traditional  view,  and  the  reckless 
taunts  thrown  out  by  some  as  to  the  lack  of  scholarship  on 


xxviii  INTRODUCTION.      §  6. 

the  part  of  the  defenders  of  the  genuineness  of  the  book  are 
as  unfounded  as  they  are  ungenerous.  Such  charges  ought 
not  to  be  made  on  either  side.  Indeed  one  cannot  help  re- 
marking that  in  such  disputes  a  disposition  quietly  to  bow  to 
the  authority  of  those  "held  in  reputation"  is  as  remarkable 
a  characteristic  of  "  the  rank  and  file  "  of  the  followers  of 
the  school  which  opposes  traditional  \dews,  as  of  those  on 
the  conservative  side. 


§  6.      The  Differences  betiveen  the  First  and  Second  Portions 

of  the  Book. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  the  style  of  the  second  portion  of 
the  book  is  in  many  respects  very  different  from  that  of 
the  first  part.  If  the  visions  related  by  the  prophet  in  the 
larger  portion  of  the  first  part  were  really  beheld  by  him, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  the  description  of  them  given  by 
him  should  be  drawn  up  for  the  most  part  in  ordinary 
prose.  The  question  assumes  a  very  different  aspect  if  it  be 
maintained  on  the  other  hand  (and  an  assumption  is  made 
on  one  side  as  well  as  on  the  other),  that  the  writer  merely 
put  forth  his  own  ideas  on  the  subjects  of  which  he  treats 
under  the  form  of  a  vision,  without  having  actually  seen  such  ; 
just  as  Bunyan  set  forth  his  ideas  on  Christian  experience 
under  the  similitude  of  a  dream.  It  is  quite  clear  that 
Zechariah  speaks  of  the  visions  as  having  been  actually  seen 
by  him,  and  records  several  inquiries  which  he  made  of  the 
angel  concerning  certain  points,  the  meaning  of  which  he  was 
unable  to  comprehend.  Are  we  to  suppose  such  inquiries  are 
introduced  simply  for  the  purpose  of  effect.'  If  we  ap- 
proach the  examination  of  an}"  book  of  Scripture  with  a 
resolute  determination  to  discard  all  that  savours  of  the 
superhuman,  our  judgment  even  on   a  question  of  st}-lc  will 


INTRODUCTION.      §  6.  xxlx 

be  very  different  from  what  it  will  be  if  we  commence  our 
investigations  in  a  different  spirit,  even  though  we  may  be 
fully  prepared  to  discover  in  each  book  distinct  proofs  of 
the  sacred  writer's  individuality,  and  of  the  times  and  cir- 
cumstances under  which  he  wrote. 

It  is  only  fair  that  these  considerations  should  be  borne  in 
mind.  We  are  far  from  ascribing  what  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson 
has  termed  "  bad  motives  "  to  those  scholars  who  maintain 
that  the  book  of  Zechariah  contains  the  writings  of  at  least 
three  distinct  authors,  and  may  honestly  affirm  that,  if  we  be- 
lieved the  internal  structure  of  this  book  demanded  such  a 
conclusion,  we  would  unhesitatingly  have  adopted  it  ;  but 
believing,  as  we  do,  that  the  prophet  depicts  in  the  greater 
part  of  the  first  six  chapters  a  vision  actually  beheld  by 
him,  which  consisted  of  several  parts,  we  cannot  consider  it 
strange  that  the  description  of  that  vision  of  the  night  season 
lacks  the  "  elevated  and  imaginative  style  "  of  the  later  pro- 
phecies, where  the  writer,  though  predicting  facts  and  ideas 
communicated  by  Divine  inspiration,  was  yet  free  to  give 
scope  to  his  own  individuality. 

Assuming  the  unity  of  the  book,  as  testified  to  by  all 
external  evidence,  until  the  traditional  opinion  be  duly  over- 
thrown by  critical  investigation,  we  may  compare  the  prose 
description  of  the  visions  in  the  first  part  with  the  simple 
prose  in  which  the  allegory  set  forth  in  chap.  xi.  is  recorded, 
and  with  the  prosaic  description  of  chap.  xiii.  i-6,  and  we 
might  almost  add  of  chap.  xiv.  If  the  writer  of  chaps,  ix.,  x., 
xi.  1-3  (if  not  verses  1-6)  exhibits  considerable  poetic  powers, 
chap.  ii.  10-17  may  be  instanced  as  also  breathing  a  poetic 
spirit ;  and  it  should  be  remembered  that  that  is  almost  the 
only  portion  in  the  first  part  of  the  book  in  which  such  a 
spirit  could  possibly  have  been  displayed.  It  need  not  sur- 
prise us  that  the  exhortations  of  the  prophet  recorded  in 
chap.  vii.  and  chap,  viii.,  delivered   in  answer  to  the  inquiry 


XXX  INTRODUCTION.      §  6. 

of  the  deputation  from  Bethel,  should,  for  the  most  part,  be 
composed  in  ordinary  prose. 

Many  of  the  objections  urged  against  the  post-exilian 
authorship  of  the  later  chapters  have  been  already  considered 
in  connexion  with  the  interpretation  of  those  portions.  We 
must  refer,  generally,  to  those  chapters  for  our  reply  to  the 
objections  adduced ;  and  we  may  be  permitted  to  express  our 
opinion  that  it  is  impossible  to  give  a  fair  and  intelligible 
explanation  of  the  several  sections  of  the  second  part  on  the 
hypothesis  of  those  portions  having  been  composed  before  the 
exile.  The  attempts  made  by  various  scholars  to  explain 
those  sections  as  pre-exilian  appear  to  us  to  be  failures. 

Dr.  S.  Davidson  lays  much  stress  upon  the  assumed  fact 
that  "the  historical  standpoint  of  chap.  ix.  i-6  and  x.  lo  is 
very  different "  from  that  of  the  earlier  portion.  This  ob- 
jection, as  urged  by  him  and  other  scholars,  has  been  so  fully 
met  in  the  body  of  the  work,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  do 
more  than  refer  to  what  is  there  written.  So  also  as  regards 
the  mention  of  Ephraim  and  Judah  in  the  second  part  of  the 
book.  Israel  is  a  name  often  given  to  Judah  alone,  and  is 
so  used  in  the  post-exilian  prophets.  If  the  inscription  of 
Mai.  i.  I  be  called  in  question,  as  it  is  by  some,  it  must  be 
borne  in  mind  that  Malachi  speaks  in  chap.  ii.  ii  of  "  Israel 
and  Jerusalem"  as  identical  with  Judah. 

Davidson  asserts  that  "the  mention  of  a  king  or  kingdom 
in  chaps,  xi.  6,  and  xiii.  7,  does  not  suit  the  age  of  Zechariah." 
He  admits,  however,  that  it  is  true,  as  Havernick  affirms, 
that  no  mention  is  made  of  the  family  of  David  as  being  still 
in  actual  possession  of  the  throne.  He  maintains,  however, 
that  "to  say  that  the  places  are  Messianic  is  irrelevant."  No 
argument  as  to  the  authorship  can  be  derived  from  chap.  xi.  6, 
as  it  is  tolerably  clear  that  passage  does  not  refer  to  Jewish 
but  to  Gentile  kings.  The  invalidity  of  the  argument  sought 
to  be  derived  from  chaj).  xiii.  7  will  be  best  seen  by  an  exami- 


INTRODUCTION.      §  6.  xxxi 

nation  of  our  interpretation  of  that  passage  in  connexion 
with  its  context. 

It  has  often  been  argued  that  the  mention  made  of  the 
"  house  of  David  "  in  chap.  xii.  7-xiii.  i  is  utterly  inconsistent 
with  the  supposition  of  the  authorship  of  Zechariah.  This 
objection  is  strongly  urged  by  v.  Ortenberg,  who  also  con- 
siders that  "  the  shepherds  "  spoken  of  in  chaps,  x.  and  xi.  refer 
to  native  rulers.  This  interpretation  will  not  suit  the  several 
passages.  As  to  the  mention  of  "  the  house  of  David,"  it 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  even  Ezekiel,  writing  at  a  time 
when  the  kingdom  of  Judah  was  totally  overthrown,  speaks 
of  "  my  servant  David"  as  destined  in  the  distant  future  to 
be  the  great  shepherd  who  was  to  rule  over  both  the  people 
of  Israel  and  Judah  (Ezekiel  xxxi  v.,  xxxvii.).  The  allusions 
made  by  Zechariah  to  that  house  are,  as  pointed  out  on  pp. 
2,68,  371-374,  peculiarly  suited  to  the  circumstances  of  the 
time  in  which  that  prophet  lived.  The  thought  expressed  by 
the  prophet  in  chap.  xii.  7,  that  the  glory  of  the  house  of 
David  and  that  of  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  would  not  be 
able  to  magnify  itself  over  Judah  is  one  which  could  never 
have  entered  into  the  conceptions  of  a  prophet  writing  before 
the  exile.     (See  p.  367.) 

The  allusions  to  idolatry  and  false  prophets  are  m.uch 
dwelt  on  by  those  who  deny  the  authenticity  of  the  second 
portion.  These  allusions,  as  we  have  pointed  out  at  sufficient 
length  in  our  remarks  on  chap.  x.  2  and  chap,  xiii.,  are  no  proof 
whatever  of  a  pre-exilian  date.  In  addition  to  the  remarks 
there  made  it  may  be  observed  that  even  Malachi  speaks 
of  "  sorcerers  "  plying  their  trade  in  his  days  (chap.  iii.  5),  and 
Josephus  speaks  of  such  arts  being  practised  at  a  later  period 
{Antiq.  viii.  2,  §  5,  comp.  Acts  xiii.  6). 

The  arguments  derived  from  the  mention  made  of  "Satan" 
and  of  "  the  Seven  Eyes  "  of  God  in  the  first  part,  while 
no  mention  is  made  of  either  in  the  latter  portion,  are  plainly 


xxxii  INTRODUCTION.      §  6. 

inconclusive  ;  though  some  have  maintained  that  tlie  first 
portion  of  the  book  must  be  regarded  as  composed  after 
the  exile,  when  such  notions  were  introduced  from  Baby- 
lon, and  that  the  second  portion,  being  free  from  all  such 
allusions,  is  to  be  assigned  to  a  date  before  the  exile.  No 
reference  to  either  point  is  made  in  the  prophecies  of  Haggai 
or  in  those  of  Malachi,  nor,  we  might  add,  in  the  exhorta- 
tions of  Zechariah  himself  in  chaps,  vii.  or  viii.  The  number 
"seven"  occurs  too  often  in  a  symbolical  sense  in  the  Old 
Test,  for  its  use  in  Zechariah  to  strike  us  as  novel ;  and  there 
is  no  necessity  whatever  to  suppose  that  in  the  mention  of 
the  Seven  Eyes  any  allusion  is  made  to  the  seven  highest 
spirits  (Tobit  xii.  15),  or  that  they  are  spoken  of  after  the 
analogy  of  the  seven  high  councillors  of  the  Persian  monarch 
(Ezra  vii.  14),  who  were  called  "  the  ears  and  eyes  of  the 
king"  (Xenoph.  Cyropcsd.  viii.  2,  10,  comp.  viii.  6,  16). 

It  has  been  further  urged  by  Hitzig,  and  the  objection 
is  repeated  by  Davidson,  that  the  author  of  the  second  part 
cannot  be  the  same  as  that  of  the  former,  inasmuch  as  "  in 
the  first  part  everything  is  shrouded  in  visions  which  are 
not  easily  understood.  The  second  part  is  not  symbolic. 
The  eleventh  chapter  contains  an  allegory,  not  a  symbolical 
transaction.  In  the  second  part  there  is  no  enigma  that 
needs  explanation;  no  angel  to  act  as  interpreter.'"  These 
objections  do  not  seem  well-considered,  for  though  we  speak 
of  the  first  part  as  containing  "  visions,"  it  must  not  be  for- 
gotten that  it  really  describes  but  one  vision  consisting  of 
seven  parts  more  or  less  closely  connected  with  one  another. 
Moreover,  the  first  part  of  the  book  also  comprises  chap.  vii. 
and  chap,  viii.,  in  which  there  are  no  visions  and  no  allusion 
to  angels.  Yet  the  latter  facts  have  never  been  considered  to 
be  any  objections  to  the  view  that  the  author  of  chaps,  i-vi. 
and  of  chaps,  vii.  viii.  is  one  and  the  same. 

It  is  no  doubt  quite  true  that  certain  phrases  and  pecu- 


INTRODUCTION.      §  6.  XXxiii 

liarities  of  expression  occur  in  the  first  eight  chapters  which 
are  not  found  in  the  concluding  six  chapters  of  the  book  ;  such 
as  the  introductory  formulas  "  the  word  of  Jahaveh  came  unto 
Zechariah,"  or  "  unto  me,"  (chaps,  i.  i,  7,  iv.  8,  vi.  9,  vii.  1,4,  8, 
viii.  I,  18),  and  "thus  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts"  (chaps,  i.  4,  17, 
ii.  12,  viii.  2,  4,  6, 7,  9,  14,  18,  20,  23).  Moreover,  in  the  first  part 
Zechariah  often  specifies  the  exact  time  at  which  he  received 
the  word  of  Jahaveh  (chaps,  i.  i,  7,  vii.  i),  mentioning  his  own 
name  (chap.  vii.  i)  and  the  names  of  some  of  his  contempo- 
raries, such  as  Joshua  and  Zerubbabel  (iii.  i,  iv.  6-10,  vi.  11)  or 
others  (chap.  vi.  10,  vii.  2);  whereas  such  statements  do  not 
occur  in  the  second  part,  nor  are  any  contemporaries  of  the 
prophet  there  mentioned. 

But  it  is  sufficient  to  reply  that  prefatory  formulas  with  a 
precise  mention  of  time  and  date  were  necessary  in  introduc- 
ing a  special  vision  like  that  of  Zechariah,  and  also  in  the  case 
of  exhortations  addressed  to  the  people  in  reply  to  a  direct 
inquiry  made  as  to  certain  points.  Similar  headings  with 
the  dates  assigned  to  them  are  found  prefixed  to  the  vision  of 
Isaiah  (vi.  i)  and  to  those  of  Ezekiel  (i.  1-3,  viii.  i,  2,  xl.  i,  2)  ; 
and  dates  are  very  frequently  found  in  the  prophets  where 
answers  are  recorded  as  given  by  Divine  command  to  certain 
inquiries  addressed  to  them. 

Introductory  formulas  are  made  use  of  by  Hosea  in  the 
first  five  chapters  of  his  book,  such  as  "  the  word  of  Jaha- 
veh," "saith  Jahaveh,"  "then  said  Jahaveh,"  "Hear  ye  the 
word  of  Jahaveh,"  "  Hear  ye  this,  O  priests,"  etc.,  which  are 
completely  wanting  in  the  last  nine  chapters  ;  and  yet  no 
doubt  is  entertained  of  the  integrity  of  that  book.  The  style 
moreover  of  that  prophet  is  very  different  in  chaps,  i.-iii.  from 
what  it  is  in  chaps,  iv.-xiv. ;  and  the  style  of  Ezekiel  iv.,  v.  is 
totally  different  from  that  of  chaps,  vi.,  vii.,  or  of  xxvii.,  xxviii. 
It  is  not  then  surprising,  as  Keil,  Stahelin  and  others  have 
observed,  to  find  that  the  style  of  Zechariah  varies  in  chaps. 

c 


xxxiv  INTRODUCTION.      §  6. 

i.-viii.  from  that  in  chaps,  ix.-xiv.,  as  the  subject  matter 
treated  of  in  the  two  portions  is  so  radically  different.  In  the 
former  portion  the  prophet  had  to  narrate  a  series  of  visions 
seen  b}'  him  in  one  night,  and  to  record  divers  exhortations  of  a 
practical  kind  suggested  by  the  inquiry  of  the  deputation  from 
Bethel ;  in  the  second  portion  he  speaks  of  the  distant  future. 
In  the  former  he  might  be  expected  to  write  in  simple  prose, 
in  the  latter  he  might  at  times  rise  to  lofty  heights  of  poetry. 

Moreover,  and  this  must  not  be  forgotten,  it  is  exceedingly 
probable  that  the  second  portion  was  composed  many  years 
after  the  first  ^  long  after  the  temple  had  been  completed,  and 
matters  had  assumed  a  kind  of  normal  condition  as  regards 
the  Jewish  colony :  and  also  at  a  time  when  the  realization  of 
the  bright  hope  of  attaining  their  national  independence 
seemed  to  be  as  far  off  as  ever.  See  our  remarks  on  pp.  199, 
ff.,  and  also  our  exposition  of  chaps,  ix.-xi.,  in  which  we  have 
pointed  out  the  many  indications  of  post-exilian  authorship, 
and  have  replied  in  detail  to  the  objections  adduced  by 
modern  scholars. 

For  similar  reasons  we  can  sec  no  great  difficulty  in  the 
fact  that  certain  other  expressions  are  found  in  the  first  part 
which  do  not  occur  in  the  second,  such  as  "the  Lord  of  the 
whole  earth  "  (chaps,  iv.  14,  vi.  5)  in  the  first  part,  or  the 
phrase  "  in  that  day "  found  in  the  later  chapters.  The 
phrase  "  the  people  round  about "  (chap.  xii.  2,  6)  could  not 
be  expected  to  occur  in  the  first  part ;  and  the  facts  that  "the 
house  of  David  "  is  not  spoken  of  there,  that  the  princes  of 
Israel,  or,  as  we  maintain,  the  Gentile  rulers,  are  not  there 
called  "shepherds,"  nor  the  people  spoken  of  as  a  "  flock,"  are 
no  real  objections  to  the  unity  of  authorship.  We  might 
equally  well  deny  that  the  author  of  chaps,  -vi.  was  the 
writer  of  chaps,  vii.,  viii.,  or  assert  that  the  author  of  chap, 
vii.  was  distinct  from  that  of  chap,  viii.,  as  difterences  of 
phraseology  can  be  detected  even  between  those  chapters. 


INTRODUCTION.      §  J.  XXXV 

§  7.  Considerations  in  favour  of  the  Integrity  of  the  Book  and 
the  Authorship  of  Zcchariah. 

One  of  the  most  important  arguments  in  favour  of  the  unity 
of  authorship  is  that  in  both  parts  there  are  numerous  quota- 
tions from,  or  allusions  to,  earlier  prophets,  and  that  the  second 
portion  contains  several  distinct  references  to  the  later  prophets. 
In  chap.  i.  4-6,  reference  is  made  generally  to  "the  former  pro- 
phets," and  so  also  in  chap.  vii.  7-17.  The  exhortation  to  "  flee 
from  the  land  of  the  north  "  in  chap.  ii.  1 1  (E.V.  ii.  6),  is  based 
on  that  in  Isa.  xlviii.  20,  "flee  from  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans," 
or  on  the  similar  commands  in  Isa.  Hi.  1 1,  Jer.  Ii.  6, 9.  The  men- 
tion in  chap.  ii.  12  (E.V.  ii.  8),  of  "the  apple  of  the  eye"  has  affi- 
nities with  Ps.  xvii.  8,  though  the  phrases  used  are  not  identical. 
In  verses  13  and  15  of  the  same  chapter  (and  in  chap.  iv.  9) 
the  expression  "ye  shall  know  that  Jahaveh  of  hosts  sent 
me  "  seems  borrowed  from  Ezek.  vi.  7,  10,  etc.  The  allusion 
to  the  vine  and  fig  tree  in  chap.  iii.  10  is  taken  from  Micah 
iv.  4.  In  the  use  of  the  name  "  Branch,"  as  an  appellation  of 
the  Messiah  (chap.  iii.  8  ;  vi.  12),  allusion  is  made  to  the  pro- 
phecies of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  (see  our  remarks  on  those 
passages).  Ps.  ex.  is  evidently  referred  to  in  chap.  vi.  13. 
Chap.  vii.  9  is,  as  noted  on  p.  174,  based  on  Ezek.  xviii.  8,  and 
Jer.  vii.  5-7,  xxii.  3.  The  imagery  in  verse  12  appears  to  be 
derived  from  Ezek.  xi.  19.  Verse  13  of  the  same  chapter  is 
almost  a  quotation  from  Jer.  xi.  1 1,  and  verse  14  from  Jer.  ii.  19  ; 
while  chap.  viii.  3  reminds  us  of  Jer.  xxxi.  23,  verse  4  of  Isaiah 
Ixv.  20,  verse  6  of  Jer.  xxxii.  17,  27,  and  verse  7  of  Isaiah 
xliii.  6.  Verse  8  of  the  same  chapter  recalls  to  mind  Hosea  ii. 
21  (E.V.  verse  19)  and  Isaiah  xlviii.  i.  Chap.  viii.  20-22  may, 
as  far  as  its  substance  is  concerned,  be  compared  with  Micah 
iv.  I,  2  ;  Isa.  ii.  3.  The  prophecy  of  the  four  chariots  is  evi- 
dently based  on  that  of  Daniel's  four  empires  (Dan.  ii.,  vii.), 
though  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  this  is  not  admitted  by 


XXXvi  INTRODUCTION.      §  7. 

our  opponents.  In  the  allusion  to  the  boasted  wisdom  of  Tyre 
there  seems  to  be  a  reference  to  Ezekiel's  ironical  description 
of  the  prince  of  Tyre,  as  "wiser  than  Daniel"  (chap,  xxviii.  3). 
The  language  of  chap.  ix.  3  refers  to  i  Kings  x.  27.  The 
prophecy  concerning  the  cities  of  Philistia  (chap.  ix.  5,  6) 
is  akin  to  Zeph.  ii.  4,  5.  The  promise  "by  the  blood  of 
thy  covenant  I  have  sent  forth  thy  prisoners  out  of  the  pit, 
wherein  is  no  water"  (ix.  11),  seems  modelled  after  Isa.  li.  14, 
"  the  captive  exile  hasteneth  that  he  may  be  loosed,  and  that 
he  should  not  die  in  the  pit."  In  chap.  ix.  12,  "return  to 
the  steep  rocks,  prisoners  of  hope,"  there  is,  perhaps,  a  refer- 
ence to  Isa.  xlix.  9,  "  that  thou  mayest  say  to  the  prisoners. 
Go  forth;  to  them  that  are  in  darkness.  Show  yourselves." 
The  last  clause  of  the  same  verse,  "double  I  will  restore  to 
thee,"  is  almost  a  quotation  of  Isa.  Ixi.  7,  "  for  your  shame 
you  shall  have  double  ...  in  their  land  they  shall  possess 
the  double,"  or  taken  from  Jer.  xvi.  18,  "first  I  will  recom- 
pense their  iniquity  and  their  sin  double."  The  prediction  of 
the  cutting  off  of  the  horses  and  chariots  in  the  Messianic  days 
(chap.  ix.  10)  is  clearly  borrowed  from  Micah  v.  TO  (see  p. 
241) ;  and  the  statement  as  to  the  extent  of  Messiah's  rule  is 
evidently  founded  on  Ps.  Ixxii.  8.  The  language  of  Zechariah 
concerning  "the  shepherds"  and  "the  goats"  (chap.  x.  3)  is 
taken  from  Ezek.  xxxiv.  2,  17.  The  whole  allegory  of  chap, 
xi.  seems  to  be  borrowed  from  Ezek.  xxxiv.  (compare  chap, 
xi.  4  with  Ezek.  xxxiv.  3,  4,  and  chap.  xi.  16  with  the  same). 
The  expression  "  the  pride  of  Jordan  "  (chap.  xi.  3)  is  plainly 
taken  from  Jeremiah,  who  is  fond  of  using  that  phrase 
(Jer.  xii.  5,  xlix.  19,  1.  44,  in  all  of  which  passages  our  A.V. 
has  incorrectly  "  the  swelling  of  Jordan ").  The  phrase  in 
chap.  xi.  5,  "  are  not  punished  "  or  "  do  not  feel  themselves 
guilty,"  seems  also  taken  from  Jer.  1.  7  (sec  our  crit.  comm.). 
Zech.  xii.  i,  where  Jahaveh  is  spoken  of  as  spreading  forth 
the  heavens  and  founding  the  earth,  is  plainly  connected  with 


INTRODUCTION.      §  /.  XXXvil 

Isa.  li.  13.  Zech.  xii.  6,  where  the  princes  of  Judah  are 
likened  to  a  pan  of  fire  among  faggots  and  a  torch  in  a  sheaf 
of  corn,  is  a  reminiscence  of  Obadiah  18,  "the  house  of  Jacob 
shall  be  a  fire,  and  the  house  of  Joseph  a  flame,  and  the  house 
of  Esau  for  stubble,  and  they  shall  kindle  in  them,  and  devour 
them."  Zech.  xiii.  2,  where  Jahaveh  promises  to  cut  off  "the 
names  of  the  idols  out  of  the  land,  and  they  shall  be  no  more 
remembered,"  is  a  quotation  from  Hosea  ii.  19  (E.  V.  17),  "for 
I  will  take  away  the  names  of  Baalim  out  of  her  mouth,  and 
they  shall  no»more  be  remembered  by  their  name."  In  Zech. 
xiii.  8,  9,  two  parts  of  the  people  are  spoken  of  as  doomed  to 
be  cut  off  while  a  third  part  is  left  in  the  land.  This  is  based 
on  Ezek.  v.  2,  12,  where  Ezekiel  is  bidden  to  divide  his  hair 
into  three  parts,  each  part  to  be  dealt  with  differently,  which 
act  is  explained  as  signifying  that  the  people  of  Jerusalem 
were  to  be  punished  in  different  ways.  The  closing  sentence 
of  Zech.  xiii.  9,  "and  they  shall  say,  Jahaveh  is  my  God,"  is 
almost  literally  quoted  from  Hosea  ii.  25  (E.V.  ver.  23).  The 
mention  made  of  the  "living  waters"  in  Zech.  xiv.  8  is  evi- 
dently taken  from  the  vision  of  the  living  waters  in  Ezek. 
xlvii.  1-12  (see  p.  487).  Zech.  xiv.  10  is  closely  connected 
with  Jer.  xxxi.  38, 40,  where  not  only  the  "tower  of  Hananeel" 
and  "the  gate  of  the  corner"  are  spoken  of,  but  where  the 
same  idea  also  pervades  the  passage.  In  speaking  of  the 
nations  going  up  to  worship  the  Lord  in  Jerusalem  (chap.  xiv. 
16-19),  Isa.  Ixvi.  23,  and  Isa.  Ix.  12  were  plainly  in  the  pro- 
phet's mind.  In  predicting  that  even  on  the  bells  of  the  horses 
there  should  be  inscribed  "  holiness  to  Jahaveh,"  the  same 
thought  is  expressed,  though  in  other  words,  as  in  Ezek. 
xliii.  12,  "this  is  the  law  of  the  house  :  upon  the  top  of  the 
mountain  the  whole  limit  thereof  round  about  shall  be  most 
holy."  The  closing  words  of  the  prophet,  "  the  Canaanite  will 
not  be  any  more  in  the  house  of  Jahaveh  in  that  day,"  are 
akin  to  those  in  Ezek.  xliv.  9,  "no  stranger,  uncircumcised  in 


XXXviii  INTRODUCTION.      §  /. 

heart,  nor  uncircumcised  in  flesh,  shall  enter  into  my  sanc- 
tuary, of  any  stranger  that  is  among  the  children  of  Israel." 

We  have  referred  to  these  texts  at  greater  length  than 
usual  in  order  that  the  casual  reader  may  see  for  himself  how 
little  Davidson's  statement  is  to  be  relied  on,  that  "  most  of 
these  reminiscences  or  borrowings  prove  doubtful  when  ex- 
amined." It  will  be  observed  that  the  latter  part  of  Zechariah 
has  more  references  to  the  former  prophets  than  the  earlier 
portion.  It  is  in  vain  to  assert  with  Bleek  and  Davidson 
that  Zechariah  is  the  original  and  that  the  other  prophets 
quoted  from  him.  The  evidence  to  the  contrary  was  so  con- 
clusive to  de  Wette's  mind  that,  though  in  the  earlier  editions 
of  his  Einleiitiug  he  had  adopted  views  opposed  to  the  tra- 
ditional thecjiry,  he  felt  himself  compelled  to  change  his  mind 
and  to  admit  that  the  evidence  for  the  post-exilian  authorship 
was  overwhelming.  As  to  the  assertion  that  Zechariah  may 
have  been  the  original,  Perowne  has  well  remarked,  "  It  must 
be  confessed  that  it  is  more  probable  that  one  writer  should 
have  allusions  to  many  others  than  that  many  others  should 
borrow  from  one,  and  this  probability  approaches  certainty 
in  proportion  as  we  multiply  the  number  of  quotations  or 
allusions."  In  the  case  under  consideration  the  probability 
almost  amounts  to  certainty. 

Among  the  traces  of  unity  of  authorship  which  ma}'  be 
discovered  by  a  comparison  of  the  two  portions  may  be  men- 
tioned the  utter  absence  of  allusion  to  any  king  over  Israel  or 
Judah.  The  references  to  "the  house  of  David  "  cannot  be 
fairly  considered  as  such  (see  p.  xxxi.).  The  only  king  men- 
tioned in  the  two  parts  is  the  Messiah,  who  under  the  name 
of  the  "Branch"  is  spoken  of  as  king  alike  in  chap.  vi.  I3,  13 
and  in  chap.  ix.  9.  On  Kucnen's  view  see  our  crit.  conmi.  on 
chap.  iii.  8.  The  statement  in  chap.  vi.  12,  13,  must  be  con- 
sidered in  connexion  with  that  in  cliap.  ii.  14,  15  (E.V.  verse 
10,  11),  and  the  latter  has  a  vcr}'  close  similarity  to  chap.  ix.  9, 


INTRODUCTION.      §  /.  XXxix 

10.  The  attempts  made  to  discover  essential  differences  in  the 
picture  given  of  the  Messianic  age  in  the  first  and  second 
portions  must  be  viewed  as  faikires. 

In  both  parts  the  house  of  Israel  and  Judah  are  spoken  of 
as  essentially  one;  e.g.,  in  chap.  ii.  2  (E.V.  i.  19)  and  viii.  13, 
and  in  the  second  portion  in  chap.  ix.  9,  10,  13,  x.  3,  6,  7.  So 
also  the  bonds  of  "  brotherhood  "  are  represented  in  chap.  xi. 
as  existing  even  after  the  good  shepherd  had  been  rejected  by 
the  people.  Zechariah  promises  a  future  to  both  portions  of 
the  covenant  people  united,  as  Jeremiah  (xxiii.  6,  1.  20)  and 
Ezekiel  (xxxvii.  16-19)  did  before  him.  The  legend  of  the 
"  lost  tribes  "  of  Israel,  as  we  have  several  times  pointed  out, 
is  a  myth  unworthy  of  serious  attention ;  and  as  Dr.  Pusey  has 
well  observed,  "  the  captivity,  in  God's  Providence,  ended  at 
once  the  kingdom  of  Israel  and  the  religious  schism,  the  object 
of  which  was  to  maintain  the  kingdom."  In  the  latter  days  of 
the  northern  kingdom  many  of  the  people  of  that  kingdom 
embraced  Hezekiah's  invitation  to  come  up  to  the  passover  at 
Jerusalem  (2  Chron.  xxx.  10,  11,  18)  ;  and  after  the  captivity 
of  the  larger  portion  of  the  northern  tribes,  which  took  place 
during  Hezekiah's  reign  over  Judah,  we  read  of  "all  Judah 
and  Israel  "  as  keeping  the  great  passover  in  the  days  of 
Josiah  and  as  styled  collectively  "  the  children  of  Israel " 
(3  Chron.  xxxv.  17,  18).  The  edict  of  Cyrus,  too,  permitting 
the  exiles  to  return  to  their  own  land,  was  published  "through- 
out all  his  kingdom"  (Ezra  i.  i),  and,  therefore,  in  all  those 
parts  where  the  Israelites,  properly  so  called,  had  been  carried 
away  captive.  We  have  also  shown  that  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  them  did  actually  return  to  Palestine.  See  pp.  279,  ff., 
and  pp.  243-5. 

A  certain  correspondence  may  be  traced  between  the  last 
six  chapters  and  the  first  six,  though  we  are  not  inclined  to 
go  as  far  as  Lange  has  done  in  that  direction.  That  com- 
mentator  seems   too    subtle  in  discovering   correspondences 


xl  INTRODUCTION.      §  /. 

between  the  two  portions.  But  there  is  a  general  Hkcncss 
traceable  between  them,  and  Stahelin  is  right  in  seeing  in 
both  the  same  announcement  of  the  Messianic  times,  and  of 
the  trials  of  the  people  which  were  to  result  at  last  in  the  glory 
of  the  theocracy.  The  differences  which  Davidson  and  others 
have  endeavoured  to  point  out  between  the  descriptions  of 
each  portion  are  no  more  than  might  be  reasonably  expected 
in  prophecies  delivered  under  different  circumstances. 

Certain  peculiar  forms  of  expression  are  found  in  both  parts 
f  the  book.  The  rare  phrase  2.'^'^')  "^2^^  occurs  in  vii.  14  and 
in  ix.  8.  See  note  3,  p.  176  and  p.  221.  "T*Ili*n  in  the  sense 
of  to  remove,  occurs  in  chaps,  iii.  4,  xiii.  2.  XWTV  DJ*}J,  which  is 
used  in  fourteen  places  in  the  first  part,  occurs  also  in  the 
second  in  chap.  x.  12,  xii.  i,  4,  xiii.  2,  7,  8.  The  whole  people  are 
similarly  styled  "the  house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of  Judah" 
(chap.  viii.  13),  or  "the  house  of  Judah  and  the  house  of  Joseph" 
(chap.  X.  6),  or  "  Judah,  Israel  and  Jerusalem,"  ii.  2  (E.V.  i.  19), 
or  "Judah  and  Ephraim"  (chap.  ix.  13),  or  "Judah  and  Israel" 
(chap.  xi.  14).  "There  is  in  both  parts,"  notes  Dr.  Pusey,  "the 
appeal  to  future  knowledge  of  God's  doings  to  be  obtained 
by  experience,  chap.  ii.  13,  15  (E.V.  verses  9,  11)  ;  in  both, 
internal  discord  is  directly  attributed  to  God,  whose  Pro- 
vidence permits  it  (chaps,  viii.  10,  xi.  6)  ;  in  both  the  prophet 
promises  God's  gifts  of  the  produce  of  the  earth  (chaps,  viii. 
12,  X.  i)  ;  in  both  he  bids  Jerusalem  burst  out  for  joy  ;  in 
the  first,  '  for  lo !  I  will  come  and  dwell  in  the  midst  of  thee ' 
(chap.  ii.  14,  E.  V.  verse  10)  ;  in  the  second,  *  behold  thy  king 
cometh  unto  thee.'  " 

The  language  of  both  parts  is  on  the  whole  pure  Hebrew. 
No  stress  can  be  laid  upon  the  few  Chaldaisms  which  occur, 
some  of  which  are  open  to  dispute.  The  prophet,  though  living 
in  the  days  of  the  Restoration,  formed  his  written  language 
after  the  purest  type  of  that  spoken  by  the  ancient  prophets. 

Great  stress  must  be  laid  upon  the  internal  evidence  afforded 


INTRODUCTION.      §  /.  xli 

by  a  consistent  interpretation  of  the  book.  A  considerable 
part  of  the  second  portion  is  utterly  inexplicable  on  the 
supposition  of  its  having  been  written  before  the  exile.  The 
references  to  the  Greeks  cannot  on  any  fair  principles  of  in- 
terpretation be  made  to  square  with  the  hypothesis  of  the 
pre-exilian  origin  of  that  portion.  See  our  remarks  on  chap. 
ix.  13,  ff.,  and  chap.  x. 

In  our  opinion  the  decision  as  to  the  integrity  of  the  book 
is  not  so  uncertain  as  Perowne  seems  to  regard  it.  Our 
view  of  the  question  would  be  considerably  modified  if  we 
had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  writings  of  the  pro- 
phets of  Israel  ought  to  be  regarded  as  ordinary  writings  with 
no  real  claims  to  Divine  inspiration  as  such  a  principle  could 
not  but  seriously  affect  our  exposition  of  various  passages. 
It  is  time,  however,  for  modern  critics  to  give  up  the  assump- 
tion which  is  too  often  made,  that  a  writer  who  uses  prose 
on  one  occasion  may  not  also  at  another  time  be  the  author 
of  poetry.  It  is,  moreover,  highly  improbable  that  the  com- 
pilers of  the  Canon  could  have  been  ignorant  with  regard  to 
the  writings  of  a  prophet  who  lived  so  near  to  their  own  times, 
or  that  they  could  have  so  easily  confounded  with  his  genuine 
productions  the  prophecies  of  two  other  prophets  who  lived 
previous  to  the  Babylonish  captivity. 

Davidson  and  other  critics  consider  chap,  xii.-xiv.  (with 
the  exception  of  chap.  xiii.  7-9)  to  have  been  written  by 
one  author,  and  composed  in  the  time  of  Jehoiakim,  about 
B.C.  600.  So  von  Ortenberg,  who,  however,  considers  chap.  xiv. 
as  of  a  somewhat  later  date  than  chap,  xii.-xiii.  6,  and  to 
have  been  written  at  a  time  when  the  confidence  of  victory 
expressed  in  the  earlier  chapters  was  considerably  lessened  on 
account  of  the  more  threatening  position  of  political  affairs, 
and  the  writer  was  led  to  fear  that  some  judgment  would  fall 
upon  Jerusalem.  If,  however,  any  prophet  could  have  de- 
livered such  predictions  at  the  period  referred  to,  he  must 


xlii  INTRODUCTION.      §  8. 

have  been  a  "  false  prophet,"  Hke  Hananiah  (Jcr.  xxviii.),  and 
one  of  those  of  whom  Jeremiah  speaks  as  proclaiming  "peace, 
peace,  when  there  was  no  peace"  (Jer.  vi.  13,  14,  viii.  10,  11, 
xiv.  13,  xxiii.  16,  17).  The  true  character  of  such  prophecies 
must  have  been  well  understood  at  the  period  of  the  exile,  if 
not  earlier ;  and  it  would  have  been  impossible,  as  Kohler 
observes,  that  any  such  writings  could  have  obtained  a  place 
in  the  collection  of  the  Jewish  sacred  writings  made  shortly 
after  the  restoration  from  captivity  by  persons  fully  aware  of 
their  real  signification. 

§  8.  Apparatus  Criticns. 

The  following  are  the  works  which  have  been  principally 
made  use  of,  though  reference  has  been  necessarily  made  to 
many  others,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  Index. 

Arnheim,  H.    Translation  in  the  German  Version  of  the  Old 

Test,  by  Zunz,  Arnheim,  Fiirst  and  Sachs.     8th  edit. 

Berlin,  1863. 
Bauer,  G.  L.     Die  kleinen  Propheten   mit  Comm.  (2  vols.). 

Leipzig,  1786,  1790. 
Baumgarten,  Prof.  M.    Die  Nachtgesichte  Sacharias  (2  vols.). 

Braunschweig,  1854,  1855. 
Blayney,  Benj.     Zcchariah,  a  new  Trans,  with  notes  critical, 

phil.  and  exeget.     4to.     Oxford,  1797. 
Bleek,  Fried.     Einlcitung  in  das  Alt.  Test.  2te  Aufl.  Berlin, 

1865,  and  4te  Aufl.  by  Wellhausen,  Berlin,  1878. 

There  is  translation   into  English  of  this  work  by  Rev.  E. 
Venables,  Resident  Canon  of  Lincoln. 

,,         Das  Zeitalter  von  Sacharja,  Kap.  9-14,  in  the  T/nvl. 
Studien  ?/.  Kritiken  for  1852. 
Bunsen,  C.  C.  J.    VoUstandiges  Bibelwerk  fiir  die  Gcmcinde. 
2te  Theil.     Die  PropJictcii.     Leipzig,  i860. 

His  Golt  in  dcr  Ccschichtc  I  know  only  at  second  hand. 


INTRODUCTION.      §  8.  xHii 

BOTTCHER,    Fried.      Neue    exeg.-kritische   Aehrenlese    zum 

A.  T.  (2  vols.).     Leipzig,  1863,  1864. 

„         Proben  alt-test  Schrifterklarung.     Leipzig,  1833. 

„         De  Inferis  rebusque  post  mortem  futuris  ex  Heb.  et 

Grsec.  opin.     Dresden,  1846. 

Calvini,    Io.,  Praelectiones   in    Duodecim    Proph.    Minores. 

Geneva,  1610. 

CAPPELLl,Lud.  Comm.etNotaeCrit.  inVet.Test.  Amst.,  1689. 

Critici  Sacri.     7  vols,  folio.     Francofurt,  1695. 

The  quotations  to  Grotius,  Di^usius,  and  others  are  made  from 
this  work. 

Chambers,  Dr.  T.  W.,  of  New  York.    The  Book  of  Zechariah 

expounded,  in  the  English  edition   of  Lange's   Com- 
mentary on  the  Old.  Test.     1874. 
Dathe,  J.  A.     Prophetae  Minores  Latine  versi  notisque  phil. 

et  crit.  illust     Halse,  1790. 
Davidson,  Dr.  Samuel.    Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament 

(3  vols.).     Williams  &  Norgate,  1862,  1863. 
Delitzsch,  Prof.  Dr.  Franz.     See  Index. 
Drake,  Rev.  Wm.      Comm.   on   Zechariah   in  the  Speaker's 

Commejitary,  vol.  vi.     London,  1876, 
EWALD,  Prof  H.     Die  Propheten  des  alten  Bundes.  2te  i\.usg. 

in  drei  Banden.     Gottingen,  1867,  1868. 
„         History  of  Israel,  English  trans,  by  Martineau  and 

Carpenter,  1 867-1 874. 
Furst,   Prof   Julius.      Der  Kanon  des  alt.  Test,  nach  den 

Ueberlieferungen   in   Talmud   u.    Midrasch.     Leipzig, 

1868. 
Geschlchte    der   bibl.   Literatur  (2  vols.).     Leipzig, 

I 867-1 870. 
Geiger,    Dr.    Abraham,    Urschrift    u.   Uebersetzungen     der 

Bibel.     Breslau,  1857. 
Havernick,  H.  a.  C.    Einleitung  in  das  alteTest.    2te  Aufl. 

von  C.  F.  Keil,     Frankfort,  1854. 


xliv  INTRODUCTION.     §  8. 

Henderson,  E.,  D.D.      The    Minor   Prophets,    trans,    with 
comm.,  crit.,  phil.  and  excg.     London,  1845. 

Hengstenberg,  E.  W.     Christology  of  the  Old  Test.     Eng- 
lish trans.  (4  vols.).     T.  &  T.  Clark,  1 863-1 865. 
„         Dissert,    on    the    Genuineness   of    Daniel   and    the 
Integrity  of  Zech.    English  trans.    T.  &  T.  Clark,  1848. 

HiTZiG,  Dr.  Ferd.     Die  zwolf  kleincn   Propheten.     3te  Aufl. 
Leipzig,  1863. 
„         Die  Prophetischen  Bucher  des  A.  T.  ubcrsctzt.    Leip- 
zig, 1854. 

VON  HoFMANN,  Dr.  J.  C.  K.  Weissagung  u.  Erfullung  in 
alt.  u,  neuen  Test.  (2  vols.).     Nordlingen,  1841. 

Der  Schriftbeweis  (3  vols.).     Nordlingen,  1852-1855. 

Keil,  Prof.  Dr.  C.  F.  Comm.  iiber  die  zwolf  kl.  Propheten. 
2te  Aufl.     Leipzig,  1873. 

KiMCHI,  David.  Comment,  on  Zcchariah,  trans,  from  the  He- 
brew, with  notes  by  the  Rev.  A.  McCaul.    Lond.,  1837. 

Kliefoth,  Dr.  Th.  Der  Prophet  Sacharjah  ubersetzt  und 
ausgelegt.     Schwerin,  1862. 

Knobel,  Aug.  Der  Prophetismus  der  Hebraer  (2  vols.). 
Breslau,  1837. 

KoHLER,  Prof  Dr.  August.  Die  nachexilischcn  Propheten 
(4  parts).     Erlangen,  1860-1865. 

Lange,  Prof.  Dr.  J.  P.  Die  Propheten  Haggai,  Sacharja, 
Maleachi,  Theol.-hom.  bearbeitet,  in  his  Bibelwerk. 
Bielefeld  and  Leipzig,  1876. 

:\IARCKII,  lo.,  in  Proph.  Min.  Comment.     Amst.,  1696-1701. 

]Maurer,  F.  J.V.  D.  Comm.  Gram.-crit.  in  Vet.  Test.  (4  vols.). 
Leipzig,  1835-1847. 

Mede,  Joseph,  B.D.,  Works  of.     London,  1677. 

Newcome,  Archbp.  The  Minor  Prophets  trans.,  etc.  New 
edition.     London,  1836. 

Neumann,  Wilhelm.  Die  Weissagungen  dcs  Sakharjah. 
Stuttgart,  i860. 


INTRODUCTION.      §  8.  xlv 

VON  Ortenberg,  E.  F.  J.      Die  Bestandtheile  des  Buches 

Sacharja.     Gotha,  1859. 
Perowne,  Prof.,  now  Dean,  J.  J.  S.     Article  on  ZecJiariah 

in  Smith's  Biblical  Dictionary.     London,  1863. 
Pressel,    W.     Comm.    zu    Haggai,    Sacharja   u.    Maleachi. 

Gotha,  1870. 
POLI,  Matthjei,  Synopsis  Criticorum.    Folio  (4  vols.).  London, 

1 669- 1 674. 
PusEY,  Dr.  E.  B.    The   Minor  Prophets,  with  a  Commentary 

explan.  and  practical.     Oxford  and  London,  1877. 
Rashi,  or  R.  Sal.  Jarchi  (Salomo  ben  Yizhak)  Comm.  Heb.  in 

Proph.  Maj.  et  Min.  etc.    Latin,  vers.   J.  F.  Breithauptii, 

1713- 
Rosenmuelleri  Scholia.    Prophetse  Minores,  editio  secunda. 

Leipzig,  1827,  1828. 
Reinke,  Laur.     Die    Messianischen  Weissagungen  bei  den 

gross,  u.  kl.  Proph.  des  A.  T.  (5  vols.).  Giessen,i  859-1 862. 
Sandrock,  H.  L.      Prior,   et   post.    Zach.  part.  Vaticinia  ab 

uno  eodemque   auct.  profecta.  Dissertatio.      Vratisb., 

1856. 
Stahelin,  J.  J.    Specielle  Einleitung  in  die  kanon.  Bucher 

des  A.  T.     Elberfeld,  1862. 
„         Die  Messianisch.  Weissagung.  des  A.  T.    Berlin,  1847. 
Schegg,  Prof.  Peter.      Die   kleinen    Propheten    iibersetzt  u. 

erklart  (2  vols.).     Regensberg,  1854,  1862. 
Soulier,  J.    Die  zwolf  kl.  Propheten.  2te  Ausg.  Nordlingen, 

1876. 
Theiner,  Dr.  J.  A.     Fifth  Part  of   his  Comment,    iiber  die 

heilige  Schrift  des  A.T.  Leipzig,  1828. 
Tremellius  &  Junius.  Biblia  Sacra.  1607. 
Umbreit,  F.  C.  W.     Pract.  Commentar  iiber  die  kl.  Propheten 

(2  parts).     Hamburg,  1844,  1846. 
Venema,  Herm.      Serm.  Acad,  vice  Comm.  ad  libr.  proph. 

Zach.     Leovard.,  1787. 


xlvi  INTRODUCTION.      §  8. 

Wordsworth,  Bishop.  The  Mhior  Prophets  in  the  Auth. 
Version,  with  notes  and  introductions.  London, 
Rivingtons,  1875. 

Koster's  Melet.  crit.  and  excg.,  Burger's  Coinmeut.  on  ZecJi., 
and  a  few  others,  have  been  quoted  by  me  at  second  hand. 

The  Church  Fathers  cited  will  be  seen  by  reference  to 
the  Index.  I  have  generally  quoted  them  from  the  Bibliotheca 
Pafrnm,  but  sometimes  at  second-hand.  I  have  used  von 
Otto's  edition  of  the  works  of  Justin  Martyr  (Jena,  1876). 
My  object  has  not  been,  however,  to  give  a  sketch  of  the 
Patristic  interpretations,  however  interesting  that  might  be. 

Besides  the  above  works  I  have  used  Gesenius'  TJiesaiirus 
completed  by  Rodiger;  the  latest  edition  of"  his  Wdrterbuch 
edited  by  Miihlau  and  Volck  (Leipzig,  1878)  ;  and  Fiirst's 
Heb.  unci  Cliald.  Handzvorterbttch  (Leipzig,  1863),  an  English 
translation  of  which  has  been  edited  by  Dr.  S.  Davidson, 
and  a  revised  edition  in  1876,  by  Dr.  Victor  Ryssel.  On 
questions  connected  with  prophecy  in  general,  I  have  con- 
sulted Davison's  Discourses  on  PropJiecy  (Lond.,  1839)  ; 
Duhm's  TJieologie  der  Propheten  (Bonn,  1875)  ;  Drummond's 
(Jas.,  B.A.,  Prof  in  Manchester  New  College,  London)  JciuisJi 
Messiah  (Longmans,  1877)  ;  Tholuck,  Die  Propheten  ii.  iJirc 
Weissagungcn  (Gotha,  i860);  Riehm  (Prof  Dr.  Ed.),  Mes- 
sianic Prophecy,  trans,  from  the  German  (Edinb.,  T.  &  T. 
Clark,  1876);  Kuenen  (Dr.  A.,  of  Leyden)  The  Prophets  and 
Prophecy  in  Israel  (authorized  English  translation,  London, 
1877)  ;  and  Dr.  R.  Payne  Smith's  Prophecy  a  P reparation  for 
Christ,  the  Bampton  Lectures  for  1859.  I  have  also  made 
use  of  Wunsche's  (Dr.  Aug.)  interesting  treatise  on  Die 
Leiden  des  Messias  (Leipzig,  1870);  Dean  '^X.diViXo.ys  Lectures 
on  the  Jewish  Church  (London,  187 5- 1877);  Prof  Count 
V.  Baudissin's  Studien  zur  Se^nitischen  Religionsgeschichte, 
Heft   I,  Leipzig,  1876;    Heft  2,  Leipzig,  1878  ;  Schrader,  Die 


INTRODUCTION.      §  8.  xlvii 

Keilinschrifteu  n.  das  alte  Testavient  (Giessen,  1872),  and 
his  Keilinschriftcn  wid  GeschicJitsforscJiung  (Giessen,  1878); 
Turpie  (David  McC,  M.A.),  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Nezv 
(London,  1868),  and  TJic  Neva  Testament  Vi'eza  of  the  Old 
(London,  1872). 

On  questions  affecting  tlie  Hebrew  text  I  have  consulted 
De  Rossi's  Varicu  Lectiones,  which  have  been  used  to  verify 
Davidson's  RevisioJi  of  the  Hcb.  text ;  Strack's  valuable  Pro- 
legomena Critiea  in  Vet.  Test.  Heb.  (Lipsiae,  1873);  Dr.  Gins- 
burg's  edition  of  Levitds  Massoreth  Jia-Massoreth;  and  Baer's 
recently  published  critical  edition  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  TJie 
Minor  Prophets,  with  preface  by  Delitzsch  (Leipzig,  1878), 
whence  I  have  taken  the  readings  of  the  Babylonian  Codex, 
as  time  did  not  permit  me  to  collate  minutely  the  text  of  that 
codex  in  Strack's  magnificent  edition,  nor  was  such  a  colla- 
tion necessary  for  my  immediate  purpose. 

On  grammatical  points  I  have  consulted  the  last  edition  of 
Gesenius'  Hebrew  Grammar  edited  by  Kautzsch  (Leipzig, 
1878),  as  well  as  the  20th  edition  edited  by  Rodiger  (the 
2 1st  edition,  1872,  I  have  not  seen).  English  students  will 
find,  for  ordinary  purposes,  no  difficulty  in  using  any  of  the 
later  editions.  I  have  also  used  Gesenius'  Lehrgebdiide  der 
Heb.  Sprache  (18 17),  and  given  frequent  references  to 
Kalisch's  Hebrew  Grammar,  the  sections  numbered  with 
Arabic  numerals  referring  to  his  first  part,  and  those  marked 
with  Roman  numerals  to  his  second.  References  are  also 
given  to  Ewald's  Ausf.  LeJirbnch,  8th  edition  (Gottingen, 
1870);  and  on  some  points  to  Olshausen's  Lehrbneh  der  Heb. 
Sprache  (Braunschweig,  1861),  to  Bottcher's  great  work,  his 
Ausfiihrl.  Lehrbneh  (Leipzig,  1866,  1868),  and  to  Driver's 
(S.  R.)  very  excellent  Treatise  on  the  Use  of  the  Tenses  in 
Hebrezv  (Oxford,  Clarendon  Press,  1874).  I  had  intended 
to  have  gone  more  minutely  into  the  points  discussed  by 
Mr.  Driver,  but  the  limits  assigned   to  my  work  prevented 


xlviii  INTRODUCTION.      §  8. 

mc  from  doing  so.  Similar  reasons  have  hindered  me  from 
entering  upon  the  various  questions  connected  with  the 
metheg  as  set  forth  in  Baer's  treatise  in  Merxs  Archiv,  and 
from  giving  notes  on  the  Hebrew  accentuation  ;  for  to  have 
done  so  would  have  required  considerably  more  space  than 
it  was  possible  to  afford,  as  well  as  necessitated  the  postpone- 
ment of  the  publication  of  this  work  for  a  considerable  time. 

It  only  remains  to  note  that  the  text  of  the  LXX.  used 
is  that  of  Tischendorf,  but  that  much  valuable  help  has  been 
derived  from  Field's  masterly  edition  of  Ongeu's  Hexapla 
(Oxon.,  1875),  from  which  the  readings  of  Aquila,  Symmachus 
and  Theodotion,  as  also  of  the  Syriac  Hexaplar  text  (when 
referred  to)  have  been  taken.  For  the  Syriac  Peschitto  I 
have  used  the  text  of  Lee,  compared  with  that  in  the 
London  Polyglott,  from  which  latter  work  the  Arabic  version 
has  been  taken.  The  Itala  has  been  quoted  from  the  great 
work  of  Sabatier.  For  the  Targum,  the  text  of  the  London 
Polyglott  has  been  compared  with  that  of  de  Lagarde,  in 
his  ProphctcB  Clialdaicc  e  fide  codicis  raicJdiniani  (Leipzig, 
Teubner,  1872). 


THE 

BOOK  OF  THE  PROPHET  ZECHARIAH. 


NE  W     TRA  NSLA  TION. 


CHAPTER    L 

I  In  the  eighth  month,  in  the  year  two  of  Darius,  was  the 
word  of  Jahaveh  to  Zechariah,  the  son  of  Berechiah,  the 
son  of  Iddo  the  prophet,  saying — 

2,  3  Jahaveh  was  indeed  angry  with  your  fathers  :  And  say 
unto  them,  Thus  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  Return  unto  me, 
('tis)  the  utterance  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  that  I  may  return 

4  unto  you,  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts.  Be  not  as  your  fathers, 
unto  whom  the  former  prophets  cried,  saying,  Thus  saith 
Jahaveh  of  hosts,  Return  now  (or,  return,  pray)  from  your 
evil  ways,  and  from  your  evil  deeds,  but  they  did  not  hear, 
and  attended  not  to  me,  ('tis)  the  utterance  of  Jahaveh. 

5  Your  fathers,  where  are  they  ?  and  the  prophets  ?  will  they 

6  live  for  ever  .-•  Only  my  words  and  my  decrees,  which  I 
commanded    my   servants   the    prophets,  have   they  not 

5  Or,  "  and  the  prophets — do  they  live  for  ever  ?  "  The  Syr.  has  "  and  my 
prophets."  , 

6  The  LXX.  supply  ^T\\>  after  "decrees,"  translating  ir\T)v  roi)s  \ljyov%  fioxi Kal 
rb.  v6iiifj.d  /MOV  Sexe(Tde.     So  the  Arab. ,  but  not  the  Syr. 

After  "  I  commanded  my  servants  the  prophets,"  the  LXX.  add  if  Trvevfj.ari 
fiov,  which  may  be  regarded  as  an  interpretation. 

The  LXX.  render  the  clause  "have  they  not  overtaken  your  fathers  "by  ol 
KareXaSocra]'  tous  waripas  vixuiu,  rendered  by  Schleusner  "  who  lived  at  the  time 
of  your  fathers. " 

d 


"1  THE   BOOK   OF   ZECHARIAII,  i.  6- 1 6. 

overtaken  your  fathers  ?  And  they  turned  and  said,  As 
Jahaveh  of  hosts  designed  to  do  to  us  according  to  our 
ways  and  according  to  our  deeds,  so  hath  he  done  with  us. 

7  In  the  twenty  and  fourth  day  of  the  eleventh  month,  that 
is  the  month  Shebat,  in  the  year  two  of  Darius,  was  the 
word  of  Jahaveh  to  Zechariah,  the  son  of  Berechiah,  the 
son  of  Iddo,  the  prophet,  saying — 

8  I  saw  in  the  night,  and  lo !  a  man  riding  upon  a  red 
horse,  and  he  (was)  standing,  between  the  myrtles  which 
were  in  the  valley,  and  behind  him  horses,  red,  bay  (or  cJiest- 

9  7iut)  and  white.  And  I  said,  What  are  these,  my  lord  }  And 
the  angel  that  talked  with  me  said,  I  will  shew  thee  what 

10  these  are.  And  the  man  who  was  standing  between 
the  myrtles  answered    and  said,   These   are   they  which 

1 1  Jahaveh  sent  to  walk  up  and  down  on  the  earth.  And  they 
answered  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh,  who  was  standing  between 
the  myrtles,  and  said,  Wc  have  walked  up  and  down  on  the 
earth,  and  behold,  the  whole  earth  is  sitting  and  resting  {i.e., 

12  resting  tranquilly).  And  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh  answered 
and  said,  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  how  long  hast  thou  not  pity  for 
Jerusalem  and  for  the  cities  of  Judah,  against  which  thou 

13  hast  been  angry  these  seventy  years.?  And  Jahaveh 
answered  the  angel  who  talked  to  me  (with)  good  words, 

14  words  (which  were)  consolations.  And  the  angel  that 
talked  to  me  said  to  me.  Proclaim,  saying.  Thus  saith 
Jahaveh  of  hosts,  I  am  zealous  for  Jerusalem  and  for  Zion 

15  (with)  great  zeal.  And  with  great  wrath  am  I  wroth 
against  the  nations  which  are  at  ease  (or,  in  security,  or 
pi'oud,  on  account  of  such  security),  because  I  was  angry 
for  a  little  while,  but  they  helped  for  evil. 

16  Therefore  thus  saith  Jahaveh,  I  have  returned  to  Jeru- 

6     ^jnX-     Theod.  vylv,  and  so  vixdv  for  ^fi.(iiv  in  the  preceding  clause. 
16    Cod.  I  and  Syr.  have  at  the  commencement  of  the  verse  ' '  Jahaveh  of  hosts." 
The  LXX.  add  in.  (nW)  at  the  end  of  the  verse. 


THE  BOOK   OF  ZECHARIAH,  1.  l6-ii.  6.  H 

salem  with  mercies,  my  house  shall  be  built  in  it,  ('tis)  the 
utterance  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  and  a  line  shall  be  stretched 
17  over  Jerusalem.  Moreover,  proclaim,  saying,  thus  saith 
Jahaveh  of  hosts,  Again  shall  my  cities  overflow  with 
good  (or,  prosperity),  and  Jahaveh  shall  comfort  again 
Zion,  and  choose  again  Jerusalem. 


CHAPTER     II. 

(In  our  Authorized  English  Version  the  first  four  verses  are  assigned  to  chap.  i. 
after  the  LXX.  and  Vulgate.) 

1  And  I  lifted  up  mine  eyes,  and  saw,  and  behold  four 

2  horns.  And  I  said  to  the  angel  that  talked  with  me, 
What  are  these  t  and  he  said  to  me,  These  are  the  horns 
which  scattered  Judah,  Israel,  and  Jerusalem. 

3,  4  And  Jahaveh  showed  me  four  smiths.  And  I  said, 
What  are  these  coming  to  do .''  and  he  said,  saying,  These 
are  the  horns  which  scattered  Judah,  so  that  none  lifted 
up  his  head,  and  these  are  come  to  terrify  them,  to  cast 
away  the  horns  of  the  nations  that  are  lifting  up  the  horn 
against  the  land  of  Judah  to  scatter  it  {i.e.,  the  people 
there). 

5  And  I  lifted  up  mine  eyes,  and  saw,  and  behold  a  man, 

6  and  in  his  hand  a  measuring  line.  And  I  said.  Whither 
art  thou  going  }  And  he  said  to  me,  To  measure  Jerusalem, 
to  see  how  great  (should  be)  its  breadth,  and  how  great  its 

17     The   LXX.  add  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  koX  elire  irphs  ixk  6  dyyeXot 
6  \a\wu  iv  ifioL     They  are  followed  by  the  Arab.,  but  not  the  Syr. 

2  After  "  what  are  these  ?"  the  LXX.  add  Kijpie. 

3  The  LXX.  T^KToues,  Vulg.  fabri ;  see  p.  32. 

4  After  "and  he  said,"  some    MSS.  add  vN,  which  is  expressed  by   the 
LXX.  (cod.  Alex.)  and  Syr.     The  LXX.  and  Syr,  omit  the  following  "saying." 

1K3''1.     LXX.  Kcd  i^7]\do<rai>  ovtol  tou  o^vvaL,     See  crit.  comm. 
The  LXX.  add  after  "scattered  Judah,"  ^at  rbv  'laparjX  /car^a^ai',  "  and  have 
broken  Israel,"  followed  by  the  Arabic,  but  not  by  the  Syriac. 
For  "the  land  of  Judah"  the  LXX.  read  ^jrt  ttju  yrjv  Kvplov, 


Hi  THE   BOOK   OF   ZECHARIAH,  H.  6-I4. 

7  length.     And  behold  the  angel  that  talked  with  me  gocth 

8  forth,  and  another  angel  goeth  forth  to  meet  him.  And  he 
said  to  him,  Run,  speak  to  this  young  man,  saying,  Jeru- 
salem will  remain  as  villages,  on  account  of  the  multitude 

9  of  men  and  cattle  in  her  midst.  And  I  will  be  to  her, 
('tis)  the  utterance  of  Jahaveh,  a  wall  of  fire  round  about, 
and  will  be  as  glory  in  her  midst. 

10  Ho !  ho !  and  flee  from  the  land  of  the  north,  ('tis)  the 

utterance  of  Jahaveh, 
For  as  the  four  winds  of  the  heavens  I  have  spread  you 
abroad,  ('tis)  the  utterance  of  Jahaveh. 

11  Ho  !  Zion  !  deliver  thyself, 

O  dweller  with  the  daughter  of  Babel. 

12  For  thus  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts, 

After  glory,  he  hath  sent  me,  to  the  nations  who  are  spoil- 
ing you, 
For  he  who  touchcth  you,  toucheth  the  apple   of  his  eye. 

1 3  For  behold  I  swing  my  hand  over  them. 
And  they  shall  be  as  spoil  to  their  servants, 

And  ye  shall  know,  that  Jahaveh  of  hosts  sent  mc. 

14  Rejoice  and  be  glad,  daughter  of  Zion, 

7  The  LXX.  render  NV  by  elar-^Kei,  stood  up,  namely,  to  measure  Jerusalem. 

8  The  LXX.  insert  before  "  run,"  Xiyuv. 

9  The  Syr.  adds  "in  her  midst,"  after  "  to  her,"  as  at  the  end  of  the  verse. 
10  Instead  of  y3^^0  several  MSS.  have  VSIXIi.     This  can,  however, scarcely 

have  l)een  the  reading  of  the  Vulg.  jn  quatuor  vetttos,  or  of  the  Syr.,  which  would 
require  y3"15<  a 

12  D^1Jn"?X.  R.  Nathan  'J"?y  in  his  Concordance.  The  Oriental  reading  is 
D^Un  7y,  and  so  Codd.  The  LXX.,  Syr.  and  Targ.  are  quoted  as  supporting  this 
reading,  but  this  is  more  than  doubtful. 

l^Jl  Codd.  rj33.  The  LXX.  would  appear  to  h.avc  had  this  reading,  as  they 
translate  ws  6  aTrrdiievo's.  71333.  Some  Codd.    read    7133,    but   incorrectly. 

See  Elias  Levita's  Massoreth-ha-J\Iassorelh,  edited  by  Ginsburg,  p.  219. 

13  Dnn3yA  So  correctly  Baer,  after  all  the  old  editions  and  very  many  MSS., 
and  so  our  A.V.  The  third  edition  of  the  Rabb.  Bible  (Ven.  1568)  has  the  read- 
ing Dn*"13yp,  which  came  from  thence  into  Athias'  edition,  and  thence  into 
those  of  V.  d.  Ilooght  and  Ilahn.      It  is  found  also  in  many  MSS.,  and  is  sup- 


THE  BOOK   OF  ZECHARIAH,  11.  14-iii.    5.  liii 

For  behold  I  am  coming,  and  I  will  dwell  in  thy  midst, 
('tis)  the  utterance  of  Jahaveh. 

15  And  many  nations  shall  join  themselves  to  Jahaveh  in 

that  day,  and  shall  be  to  me  for  a  people, 
And  I  will  dwell  in  thy  midst, 
And  thou  shalt  know,  that  Jahaveh  of  hosts  hath  sent  me 

to  thee. 

16  And  Jahaveh  shall  inherit  Judah  as  his  portion,  on  {i.e., 

in)  the  holy  land, 
And  choose  again  Jerusalem. 

17  Hush!  all  flesh  before  Jahaveh, 

For  he  hath  raised  up  himself,  from  his  holy  dwelling. 


CHAPTER     III. 

1  And  he  showed  me  Joshua  the  high  priest  standing 
before  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh,  and  the  Adversary  standing 

2  on  his  right  to  act  as  adversary  to  him.  And  Jahaveh 
said  to  the  Adversary,  Jahaveh  rebuke  thee,  O  Adversary, 
yea  Jahaveh  rebuke  thee,  who  delighteth  in  Jerusalem.    Is 

3  not  this  a  brand  plucked  from  the  fire.'*  And  Joshua  was 
clothed   with   filthy  garments,  and   standing   before   the 

4  Angel.  And  he  answered,  and  said  unto  those  standing 
before  him,  saying.  Take  off  the  filthy  garments  from 
upon  him ;  and  he  said  to  him,  See,  I  have  removed 
thy    iniquity    from   thee,    and    have   clothed  thee    with 

5  changes  of  raiment.  And  I  said,  Let  them  put  a  clean 
mitre  upon  his  head.     And  they  put  the  clean  mitre  upon 

*      7  c 

ported  by  the  LXX.  roli  Sovkevovcrcv  aindlt.     The  Syr.  render  .oou'^iii^    "  thei?' 
works." 

4  Codd.  5  read  "T'JIl?.     The  LXX.  also  express  the  plural. 

5  And  I  said.  The  LXX.  omit  these  words,  and  translate  the  words  follow- 
ing in  the  second  pers.  pi.  /cat  iiridere  Kidapiv  KaOapdv.  Two  INISS.,  Vulg.,  Syr., 
"  and  be  said,"    See  p.  63. 


liv  THE   BOOK   OF   ZECHARIAII,    iii.  5-iv.  4. 

his  head,  and  they  clothed  him  with  garments.     And  the 
Angel  of  Jahaveh  was  standing  by. 

6  And   the  Angel   of   Jahaveh   protested    unto   Joshua, 

7  saying,  Thus  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  If  in  my  ways  thou 
wilt  walk,  and  if  thou  wilt  keep  my  testimony  (or,  command- 
ment), then  thou  shalt  also  judge  my  house,  and  also  keep 
my  courts,  and  I  will  give  to  thee  walks  {i.e.,  open  ways, 

8  free  ingress)  among  these  (angels)  standing  (here).  Hear 
now,  Joshua  the  high  priest,  thou,  and  thy  companions 
who  sit  (or,  those  sitting)  before  thee,  for  men  of  portent 
are  they,  for  behold  I  am  bringing  forth  my  servant  Branch 

9  (or.  Shoot).  For  behold  the  stone  which  I  have  placed  be- 
fore Joshua,  upon  one  stone  (are)  seven  eyes;  behold,  I  am 
graving  its  graving,  ('tis)  the  utterance  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts, 
and  I  will  remove  the  iniquity  of  this  land  in  one  day.    In 

10  that  day,  ('tis)  the  utterance  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  ye  shall 
call  (or,  invite)  each  man  his  companion  under  the  vine, 
and  under  the  fig  tree.' 


CHAPTER     IV. 

1  And  the  angel  which  talked  to  me  returned,  and  waked 

2  me,  as  a  man  who  is  awaked  from  sleep.  And  he  said 
to  me.  What  art  thou  beholding  >  And  I  said,  I  see  (or, 
I  have  seen),  and  behold  a  candlestick  entirely  of  gold,  and 
its  bowl  upon  the  top  of  it,  and  its  seven  lamps  upon  it, 
seven  and  seven  pipes  to  the  lamps  which  are  upon  its  top. 

3  And  two  olive-trees  above  it,  one  at  the  right  of  the  bowl, 

4  and  one  upon  its  left.  And  I  answered,  and  said  to  the 
angel  who  talked  with  me,  saying.  What  are  these,  my 

5  The  LXX.  transl.  '\12V  in  the  last  clause  as  if  it  were  the  perfect,  (drr-fiKti) 
but  it  is  pointed  in  the  Hebrew  as  the  participle  to  indicate  that  the  Angel  was 
standing  by  during  the  whole  transaction. 

2    "And  I  said."     See  crit.  comm. 


TFIE   BOOK   OF   ZECHARIAH,  iv.  5-14.  IV 

5  lord  ?  And  the  angel  that  talked  with  me  answered,  and 
said  to  me,  Dost  thou  not  know  what  these  are?  and  I  said, 

6  No,  my  lord.  And  he  answered  and  said  to  me,  saying. 
This  is  the  word  of  Jahaveh  to  Zerubbabel,  saying,  Not 
by  might,  and    not    by   power,   but  by   my  spirit,  saith 

7  Jahaveh  of  hosts.  Who  art  thou,  O  great  mountain  !  Be- 
fore Zerubbabel,  for  a  plain  !  and  he  shall  bring  forth  the 
top-stone,  (amid)  shoutings,  Grace,  grace  to  it ! 

8, 9  And  the  word  of  Jahaveh  was  to  me,  saying,  The  hands 
of  Zerubbabel  have  founded  {i.e.,  laid  the  foundation  of) 
this  house,  and  his  hands  shall  finish  it,  that  thou  mayest 

10  know  that  Jahaveh  of  hosts  hath  sent  me  to  you.  For 
who  despiseth  a  day  of  small  things.-'  For  {i.e.,  seeing  that) 
there  have  rejoiced,  and  seen  the  plummet  (lit.,  the  stone, 
the  tin)  in  the  hand  of  Zerubbabel,  these  Seven,  the 
Eyes  of  Jahaveh,  they  are  running  to  and  fro  in  all  the 

1 1  earth.  And  I  answered  and  said  to  him,  What  are  these 
two  olive  trees,  upon  the  right  of  the  candlestick  and  upon 

12  its  left  }     And  I  answered  a  second  time,  and  said  to  him, 
■    What  are  the  two  branches  of  the  olive  trees  which  by 

means  of  the  two  channels  of  gold,  are  pouring  forth  the 
gold  (i.e.,  the  golden  oil)   from  out  of  themselves  }    And 

13  he  said  to  me,  saying.  Dost  thou  not  know  what  these 

14  are  "^  And  I  said.  No,  my  lord.  And  he  said,  These  are 
the  two  sons  of  oil,  which  are  standing  before  the  Lord  of 
all  the  earth. 


7     ''D.     Cod.  I  has  '•S. 

9     nnM.     Codd.  have  DnUTM.    The  plural  is  also  expressed  by  the   Syr., 
Targ.  and  Vulg.  n'2'h^.  Cod.  i  has  T'Sx,  and  so  the  LXX. 

10     Or,    "there  rejoice  and  see,"   taking  the  perfects  as  presents.     Codd.  5 

omit  nion. 

The  Orientals  read  PnilT  ^3Q7  instead  of  7211?  n"'3  in  the  kethibh,  and  have 
the  latter  as  the  k'ri  reading.     So  the  Babylonian  Codex. 

13  Codd.  insert  T\'OT\  before  n?X. 

14  Codd.  3  read  'h^  nDKM. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ZECHARIAH,  V.    I -9. 


CHAPTER  V. 

1  And  I   turned  and  lifted  up  my  eyes,  and  I  saw,  and 

2  behold  a  roll  flying.  And  he  said  to  me.  What  art  thou 
beholding  ?     And   I  said,  I  see   a   roll  flying,  its  length 

3  twenty  cubits,  and  its  breadth  ten  cubits.  And  he  said  to 
me,  This  is  the  curse  which  is  going  forth  over  the  face  of 
the  whole  land,  for  every  one  that  stealeth  shall  be  cleansed 
away  on  this  side  according  to  it,  and  every  one  that 
sweareth  shall  be  cleansed  away  on  this  side  (on  the  other 

4  side)  according  to  it.  And  I  will  bring  it  forth,  ('tis)  the 
utterance  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  and  it  shall  enter  into  the 
house  of  the  thief,  and  into  the  house  of  him  who  swear- 
eth by  my  name,  falsely,  and  shall  lodge  in  the  midst  of 
his  house,  and  shall  consume  it,  and  its  timbers  and  its 
stones. 

5  And  the  angel  that  talked 'with  me  went  forth,  and  he 
said  to  me,  Lift  up   now  thine  eyes  and  see  what  is  this 

6  thing  which  is  going  forth  (or,  appearing)  ?  And  I  said. 
What  is  it  ?  And  he  said.  This  is  the  ephah  which  is 
going  forth  (or,  appearing).     And  he  said,  This  is  their  eye 

7  in  all  the  land.  And  behold  a  talent  of  lead  was  being 
lifted    up  {i.e.,  carried),  [and   I   saw]  and  this  (was)  one 

8  woman,  sitting  in  the  middle  of  the  ephah.  And  he  said. 
This  is  Wickedness;  and  he  flung  her  down  into  the 
middle  of  the  ephah,  and  he  flung  the  weight  of  lead  {i.e., 
the  talent  weight)  on  her  mouth.     And  I  lifted  up  mine 

9  eyes,  and  I  saw,  and  behold,  two  women  going  forth,  and 
(the)  wind  was  in  their  wings,  and  they  had  wings,  like  the 
wings  of  the  stork,  and  they  lifted  up  the  ephah  between 
the  earth,  and  between  the  heaven.  And  I  said  to  the 
angel  that  talked  with  me.  Whither  are  they  bringing  the 
ephah  }     And  he  said  to  mc,  To  build  for  her  a  house 


THE  BOOK   OF   ZECHARIAH,   V.   Q-vi.    10.  Ivii 

in  the  land  of  Shinar,  and  (if)  it  shall   be   established, 
then  she  shall  be  set  there  upon  her  base. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

1  And  I  lifted  up  mine  eyes  again,  and  I  saw,  and  behold, 
four  chariots  going  forth  from  between  the  two  mountains ; 

2  and  the  mountains  (were)  mountains  of  copper.  In  the  first 
chariot  red  horses,  and  in  the  second  chariot  black  horses. 

3  And  in  the  third  chariot  white  horses,  and  in  the  fourth 

4  chariot  horses  speckled,  strong.  And  I  answered  and  said 
to  the  angel  that  talked  with  me,  What  are  these,  my  lord  ? 

5  And  the  angel  answered  and  said  to  me,  These  are  the 
four  winds  of  the  heavens,  going  forth  from  standing  before 

6  the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth.  That  in  which  the  black 
horses  are,  (they)  are  going  forth  to  the  land  of  the  North  ; 
and  the  white,  (they)  have  gone  forth  to  that  which  is 
behind  them  ;  and  the  speckled,  (they)  have  gone  forth  to 

7  the  land  of  the  South.  And  the  strong  went  forth,  and 
they  sought  to  go  forth  to  walk  to  and  fro  through  the 
earth ;  and  he  said,  Go  forth,  walk  to  and  fro  through  the 
earth,  and  they   walked  to  and   fro   through   the  earth. 

8  And  he  cried  to  me,  and  said  to  me,  saying.  See  these 
(horses)  going  forth  to  the  land  of  the  North,  (they)  have 
caused  my  anger  (lit.,  iny  spirit)  to  rest  upon  the  land 
of  the  North. 

9,  10  And  the  word  of  Jahaveh  was  to  me,  saying,  Take 
from  the  captivity,  from  Heldai,   and  from  Tobiah,  and 

5     l^'TiriD.     Codd.  2  LXX.  {TrapaaTrivai),  Ax.,  Syr. ,  Vulg.   {ut   stent)  read 
3Vnn7.     But  this  reading  is  against  the  sequel  of  the  narrative. 

lo     ni^lD  nXJOI.       So    Baer  has    rightly   edited,  instead  of    TIXIS   on   the 
authority  of  many  MSS.,  LXX.  (see  crit.  comm.),  Aquil. ,  Syr.,  Targ.,  Vulg. 

1K3.     Codd.  2,  Syr.,  LXX.,  read  i<3,  in  the  singular.    So  the  Targ.,  according 
to  the  Lond.  Polygl.,  but  de  Lagardehas  the  plural. 


Iviii  THE  BOOK  OF  ZECHARIAII,  vi.   lO-vii.  2. 

from  Jedaiah,  and  go  thou   on  that  day,  and  go,  to  the 
house  of  Josiah  the  son  of  Zcphaniah,  who  are  come  from 

1 1  Babylon.  And  take  silver  and  gold,  and  make  a  crown, 
and  place  it  on  the  head  of  Joshua  the  son  of  Jehozadak 

12  the  high  priest.  And  say  unto  him,  saying,  Thus  saith 
Jahaveh  of  hosts,  saying. 

Behold  a  man,  Branch  (or.  Shoot)  is  his  name, 
And  he  shall  branch  up  (or,  shoot  up)  from  his  place, 
And  build  the  temple  of  Jahaveh. 

13  And  he  shall  build  the  temple  of  Jahaveh, 
And  he  shall  bear  majesty. 

And  sit  and  rule  upon  his  throne. 

And  be  priest  upon  his  throne, 

And  the  counsel  of  peace,  (it)  shall  be  between  them  both. 

14  And  the  crown  shall  be  for  Helem,  and  for  Tobiah,  and 
for  Jedaiah,  and  for  the  kindliness  of  the  son  of  Zepha- 

15  niah,  for  a  remembrance  in  the  temple  of  Jahaveh.  And 
those  from  far  shall  come,  and  build  in  the  temple  of 
Jahaveh,  and  ye  shall  know,  that  Jahaveh  of  hosts  sent 
me  to  you — and  it  will  be,  if  ye  verily  hearken,  to  the 
voice  of  Jahaveh  your  God. 


CHAPTER   VII. 

1  And  it  was  in  the  year  four  of  Darius  the  king,  the 
word  of  Jahaveh  was  to  Zcchariah,  in  the  fourth  (day)  of 

2  the  ninth  month,  in  Kislev.     Then  sent  Bethel,  (that  is) 

1 1  JT'tJ'yi.  Kimchi,  in  his  Michlol,  6  b,  7a,  mentions  the  reading  n^ti'l?!  as  that 
of  Ben  Naphtali. 

12  Codcl.  omit  the  first  1DN?  {sayiug),  which  is  not  expressed  by  the  LXX., 
Syr.  and  Arab.,  but  this  does  not  prove  that  they  had  a  different  reading.  "  From 
his  place,"  lit.,  "from  under  liim." 

14     Codd.  2.     n:''nn  plural. 
2     Baer  has  edited  7Sn*3  in  one  word,  instead  of  7S"n*3,  on  the  authority 


THE   BOOK   OF   ZECHARIAH,   vii.  2-12.  Hx 

Sarezer,  and  Regem-melek,  and  their  men,  to  intreat  the 

3  favour  of  Jahaveh  (Ht.,  to  stroke  the  face  of  f),  saying  (with 
directions  to  say)  to  the  priests  who  (belonged)  to  the 
house  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  and  to  the  prophets,  saying, 
Shall  I  {i.e.,  the  city  of  Bethel  and  the  inhabitants  thereof) 
weep  in  the  fifth  month,  using  abstinence,  as  I  have  done, 
for  how  many  years  ? 

4  And  the  word  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts  was  to  me,  saying, 

5  Speak  to  all  the  people  of  the  land,  and  to  the  priests, 
saying,  When  ye  fasted  and  mourned  in  the  fifth  and  in 
the  seventh  (months),  even  now  (or,  and  this)  seventy  years, 

6  — have  ye  then  fasted  me  (or,  to  7)ie),  ME  ?  And  when  ye 
eat,  and  when  ye  drink,  are  not  ye  (the  persons)  who  eat, 

7  and  ye  (they)  who  drink  ?  (Do)  not  (ye  know)  the  words 
which  Jahaveh  hath  proclaimed  by  means  of  (lit,  by 
the  hand  of)  the  former  prophets,  when  Jerusalem  was 
dwelt  in  and  was  safe,  and  her  cities  round  about  her, 
and  the  South  and  the  Lowland  were  (lit.  luas)  inhabited  .^ 

8  And  the  word  of  Jahaveh  was,  to  Zechariah,  saying, 

9  So  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  saying, 
Judgment  of  truth  judge  ye. 
And  mercy  and  compassion 

Do  ye  each  to  his  brother. 

10  And  widow  and  orphan,  stranger   and   poor,  do    not  ye 

oppress, 
And  evil  against  each  one's  brother 
Do  not  ye  conceive  in  your  heart. 

1 1  But  they  refused  to  hearken,  and  they  gave  a  refractory 
shoulder,  and  their  ears  they  made  heavy  in  order  that 

12  they  might  not  hear.      And  their  heart  they  made  (hard 

of  MSS.     The  word  is  often  so  written  in  the  best  MSS.  in  other  books.     On 
Sarezer  see  note  on  p.  i68. 

3  "•^'Dnn-     So  Baer  on  the  authority  of  MSS. 

4  Codd.  2  with  the  Syr.  and  Targ.  omit  niX2V. 

5  The  Babylonian  Codex  and  an  Erfurt  MS.  omit  "I   before  HT.     See  Baer. 


Ix  THE  BOOK   OF  ZECHARIAII,   vii.  I2-viii.  /. 

as)  a  diamond,  in  order  that  they  might  not  hear  the  Law, 
and  the  words  which  Jahavch  of  hosts  sent  through  his 
Spirit,  by  means  of  the  former  prophets.  So  there  was 
great  wrath  from  Jahaveh   of  hosts.     And  it  was  as  he 

13  called  and  they  did  not  hear,  "  so  they  shall  call,  and  I 
will  not  hear,"  said  Jahaveh  of  hosts.     "And  I  will  toss 

14  them  over  all  the  nations  which  they  knew  not,  and  the 
land  shall  be  desolate  after  them,  so  that  there  shall  be 
no  one  passing  through  or  returning."  Thus  they  made 
a  pleasant  land  as  a  desolation. 


CHAPTER     VIII. 

1  And  there  was  the  word  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  saying, 

2  Thus  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  I  am  zealous  for  Zion  with 
great  zeal,  and  with  great  anger  am  I  zealous  on  behalf  of 

3  her.  So  saith  Jahaveh,  I  have  returned  to  Zion,  and  I  am 
dwelling  (or,  I  zv ill  dwell)  in  the  midst  of  Jerusalem,  and 
Jerusalem  shall  be  called  a  city  of  the  truth,  and  the 
mountain  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  the  holy  mountain. 

4  Thus  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts.  Old  men  and  old  women 
shall  yet  sit  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem,  and  each  (with) 
his  staff  in  his  hand  on  account  of  the  number  of  (his) 

5  days.  And  the  streets  of  the  city  shall  be  full,  of  boys  and 
girls  playing  in  its  streets. 

6  Thus  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  If  it  be  wonderful  in  the 
eyes  of  the  remnant  of  this  people,  in  those  days,  shall 
it  be  also  wonderful  in  my  eyes.'*  ('tis)  the  utterance  of 
Jahaveh  of  hosts. 

7  Thus  saith  Jahavch  of  hosts.  Behold,  I  am  about  to 
save  my  people  from  the  land  of  the  rising  (of  the  sun), 

I     Codd.  mult.,  Syr.,  Targ.  insert  vX,  but   the  Masura  notes  that  it  ought  not 
to  be  read  here. 
3     Codd.,  Vulg.  insert  niN2V  after  Jahavch. 


THE   BOOK   OF   ZECHARIAH,  viii.  7-17.  Ixi 

and  from  the  land  of  the  entrance  of  the  sun  (into  its  rest, 

8  i.e.,  the  west).  And  I  will  bring  them,  and  they  shall 
dwell  in  the  midst  of  Jerusalem,  and  they  shall  be  to  me 
for  a  people,  and  I  will  be  to  them  for  a  God,  in  truth  and 
in  righteousness. 

9  Thus  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  Let  your  hands  be  strong, 
ye  who  hear  in  these  days  these  words  from  the  mouth 
of  the  prophets,  who  were  in  the  day  the  house  of  Jahaveh 
of  hosts  was  founded,  the  temple,  in  order  that  it  should 

10  be  built.  For  before  those  days  there  were  no  wages  for 
man,  and  there  was  no  hire  for  the  cattle,  and  for  him 
who  went  out  and  for  him  who  came  in  there  was  no  peace 
on  account  of  the  oppressor,  and  I  let  loose  all  of  the  men 

1 1  each  one  against  his  companion.  And  now  am  I  not  as 
in  the  former  days  for  the  remnant  of  this  people  }  ('tis)  the 

12  utterance  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts.  For  the  seed  of  peace, 
the  vine,  shall  give  its  fruit,  and  the  earth  shall  give  its 
produce,  and  the  heavens  shall  give  their  dew,  for  I  will 
make  the  remnant  of  this  people   to   possess  all   these 

1 3  things.  And  it  shall  be,  as  ye  were  a  curse  among  the 
nations,  O  house  of  Judah  and  house  of  Israel,  so  will  I 
save  you,  and  ye  shall  be  a  blessing  ;  fear  not,  let  your 
hands  be  strong  ! 

14  For  thus  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  As  I  purposed  to  do 
evil  to  you,  when  your  fathers  provoked  me  to  anger,  saith 

1 5  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  and  I  did  not  repent  (it) :  so  have  I  again 
purposed  (or,  /  purpose  again)  in  these  days  to  do  good  to 

16  Jerusalem,  and  to  the  house  of  Judah.  Fear  not.  These 
are  the  things  which  ye  shall  do  : 

Speak  truth  each  man  with  his  companion, 
Truth  and  judgment  of  peace 
Judge  ye  in  your  gates. 

17  And  do  not  devise  in   your  hearts  each  evil  against  his 

companion, 


Ixii  THE   BOOK   OF   ZECIIARIAII,  viii.   I7-ix.   I. 

And  love  not  a  false  oath. 

For  all  these  things  are  what  I  hate, 

(Tis)  the  utterance  of  Jahaveh  ! 

1 8  And  the  word  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts  was  to  me,  saying, 

19  Thus  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  The  fast  of  the  fourth 
(month),  and  the  fast  of  the  fifth,  and  the  fast  of  the 
seventh,  and  the  fast  of  the  tenth,  shall  be  to  the  house 
of  Judah  for  gladness  and  for  joy,  and  for  good  {i.c.  joyful) 
seasons.    Therefore  truth  and  peace  love  ye. 

20  Thus  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts.  It  will  yet  be  (happen) 
that  peoples  will   come,  and  inhabitants  of  many  cities. 

2 1  And  the  inhabitants  of  one  (city)  will  go  to  another,  saying, 
"  Let  us  go  constantly  to  intreat  the  face  of  Jahaveh,  and 

22  to  seek  Jahaveh  of  hosts."  "  I  will  go  also."  And  many 
peoples  and  strong  nations  will  go,  to  seek  Jahaveh  of  hosts 
at  Jerusalem,  and  to  intreat  the  face  of  Jahaveh. 

23  Thus  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts.  In  those  days,  (it  will 
happen)  that  ten  men  shall  take  hold,  out  of  all  the 
languages  of  the  nations,  even  take  hold  of  the  skirt  of  a 
man  (who  is)  a  Jew,  saying,  "  Let  us  go  with  you,  for  we 
have  heard  God  is  with  you." 


CHAPTER     IX. 

I       The  oracle  of  the  v/ord  of  Jahaveh  on  the  land  of  Had- 
rach, 
And  Damascus  is  its  resting-place. 
For  to  Jahaveh  (will)  the  eye  of  man  (be  directed), 

17     Codd.  omit  "l"'X.     It  is  not  expressed  in  the  LXX.,  Syr.  and  Arab. 

20     "After  D^Oy    insert    D"'2"1,  Codd.  2,    LXX.,  Xx."— Davidson's  Hchrc^u 
Text  Rcuiscd. 

23     D^n'pX.     Codd.  2,  DTI^S  ""a.     The  Versions  express  the  *3,  but  it  is  n  t 
necessary  to  concUide  that  they  liad  that  reading.     Cod.  i  has  mn^  ^3. 
I     Two  MSS.  of  Baer  have  ^"lin.       Codd.  2,  IDTOp,  see  note. 


THE  BOOK   OF  ZECHARIAII,   ix.    I-9.  Ixiii 

And  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel. 

2  And  even  Hamath  shall  border  on  it, 
Tyre  and  Sidon, 

Though  they  be  very  wise. 

3  And  Tyre  built  for  herself  a  fortress, 
And  heaped  up  silver  as  the  dust. 
And  gold  as  mire  of  streets. 

4  Behold  the  Lord  will  dispossess  her. 
And  smite  her  might  in  the  sea, 
And  she  shall  be  burned  with  fire. 

5  Let  Ashkelon  see  it,  and  she  will  fear. 

And  Gaza,  and  she  will  tremble  (or,  lurithe)  exceedingly. 
And  Ekron,  for  her  expectation  shall  be  put  to  shame ; 
And  a  king  shall  perish  from  Gaza, 
And  Ashkelon  shall  not  remain. 

6  And  a  mongrel  (people)  shall  dwell  in  Ashdod  ; 
For  I  will  cut  off  the  pride  of  the  Philistines. 

7  And  I  will  take  away  his  blood  from  his  mouth, 
And  his  abominations  from  between  his  teeth. 
And  even  he  will  remain  for  our  God, 

And  be  as  a  prince  in  Judah, 
And  (or,  even)  Ekron  as  a  Jebusite. 

8  And  I  will  encamp  for  my  house  against  an  army, 
So  that  no  one  shall  go  to  and  fro  (over  it). 

And  no  taskmaster  shall  pass  through  (over)  them  again, 
For  now  have  I  seen  with  my  eyes. 

9  Rejoice  greatly,  daughter  of  Zion, 
Shout,  daughter  of  Jerusalem, 

Behold  thy  king  shall  come  to  thee  {or,  for  thy  good), 

Righteous  and  Saved  is  he. 

Afflicted,  and  riding  upon  an  ass,  •*" 

2     LXX.  5t(5rt  i(pp()vr)aav  (T(p6Spa. 

8    Or,  against  the  passer  by  and  him  who  retumeth. 


Ixiv  THE   BOOK   OF   ZECHARIAH,    Ix.    10- 1 5. 

And  upon  a  colt,  a  foal  of  she-asses. 

10  And  I  will  cut  off  the  chariot  from  Ephraim. 
And  the  horse  from  Jerusalem, 

And  the  battle-bow  shall  be  cut  off; 

And  he  will  speak  peace  to  the  nations, 

And  his  rule  shall  be  from  sea  to  sea, 

And  from  the  River  {i.e.,  Euphrates)  to  the  ends  of  Earth. 

1 1  Even  thou  !  through  the  blood  of  thy  covenant, 

I  send-forth  (or,  /  have  sent-forth)  thy    prisoners  out  of 

the  pit 
In  which  there  is  no  water. 

12  Return  to  the  steep-rocks  (lit.,  the  steepness), 
Ye  prisoners  of  hope  ; 

Even  to-day,  I  announce  it,  double  I  will  restore  to  thee. 

13  For  I  will  bend  (or,  draw)  for  me  Judah  as  a  bow, 
I  will  fill  it  with  Ephraim, 

And  I  will  lift  up  (as  my  spear)  thy  sons,  Zion,  against  thy 

sons,  Javan  !  {i.e.,  Greece) 
And  I  will  make  thee  as  the  sword  of  a  mighty  one, 

14  And  Jahaveh  shall  be  seen  over  them. 
And  his  arrow  go  forth  as  the  lightning, 

And  the  Lord  Jahaveh  will  blow  with  the  trumpet. 
And  walk  forth  in  the  storms  of  the  south. 

15  Jahaveh  of  hosts  will  shield  them. 

And  they  will  eat,  and  they  will  tread  down  sling-stones. 
And  they  drink,  and  rage  as  with  wine, 


9    Or,  as  Chambers,  "  the  she-asses'  foal." 
II     See  p.  249  and  note  2  there,  as  also  crit.  comm. 

13  Or,  according  to  the  Hebrew  accentuation,  "I  will  bend  (as  a  bow)  for  me 
Judah,  I  will  fdl  the  bow  with  Ephraim."     But  see  crit.  comm.     Cod.  I,  LXX., 

Arab,  read  "]?,  inste«<Jt>f  *?. 

15  ^Dni.  So  Baer  has  edited  after  MSS.  and  a  manuscript  of  the  Masora 
parva.  He  notes  also  that  tlie  ]irinted  ISIasora  mjntions  three  cases  in  wliich  this 
word  occurs  with  the  copula  (IDm),  namely,  Jcr.  v.  22,  li.  55,  and  this  pass.ige. 
Many  MSS.  have  this  reading,  and  so  Kimchi  and  Abarbancl. 


THE   BOOK   OF   ZECHARIAH,  ix.   15-X.  3.  Ixv 

And  be  filled  (with  blood)  as  the  sacrificial-bowl, 
As  the  corners  of  at^  altar. 

16  And  Jahaveh  their  God  will  save  them   in  that  day,  his 

people  as  a  flock, 
For  (they  will  be  as)  stones  of  a  diadem 
Shining  forth  upon  (or,  over)  his  land. 

17  For  how  great  (lit.,  ivJiat)  is  his  (Israel's)  beauty,  and  how 

great  is  his  goodness  ! 
Corn  shall  make  the  young  men  increase, 
And  wine  the  maidens. 


CHAPTER  X. 

1  Seek  ye  from  Jahaveh  rain  in  the  time  of  latter  rain  ; 
Jahaveh  maketh  the  showers  : 

And  copious  rain  will  he  give  to  them, 
For  each  one  grass  in  the  field. 

2  For  the  teraphim  speak  falsehood, 
And  the  diviners  see  lies. 

And  dreams  speak  vanity, 
They  comfort  in  vain. 

Therefore  they  departed  (or,  migrated)  as  sheep, 
They  are  afflicted  (or,  oppressed),  because  there  is  no  shep- 
herd. 

3  Against  the  shepherds  my  anger  is  kindled. 
And  the  he-goats  I  will  visit  (in  judgment), 

16     Not  "  crowned  trophies,"  as  Newcome  after  Houbigant  and  Cappellus,  or 
"  consecrated  stones,"  as  Blayney.     See  p.  260  and  the  note  there. 

1  Codd.  have  DD?  "  to  you  "  instead  of  "  /«?  them;  "  soH^r. 

2  See  on  this  verse  p.  268  and  note.     Codd.  13171  "and  they  are  afflicted," 
and  so  all  the  versions. 

3  On  '^ visit  in  judgment"  see  note  on  page  271.     Some  MSS.  and  editions 
insert  badly  1  {and)  before  "  the  house  of  Judah." 


Ixvi  THE   BOOK   OF   ZECHARIAII,  X.  3- 10. 

For  Jahaveh  of  hosts  visitcth  (in  mercy)  his  flock,  the  house 

of  Judah,  ^ 

And  maketh  them 
As  his  state-horse  in  the  battle. 

4  From  him  corner,  from  him  nail, 
From  him  battle-bow, 

From  him  proceedeth  every  oppressor  together. 

5  And  they  shall  be  like  heroes  trampling  (their  enemies) 
In  the  mire  of  streets,  in  the  battle, 

And  they  shall  fight. 

For  Jahaveh  is  with  them, 

And  riders  upon  horses  shall  be  ashamed. 

6  And  I  will  strengthen  the  house  of  Judah, 
And  the  house  of  Joseph,  will  I  save  ; 

And  I  will  bring  them  back,  for  I  have  compassion  upon 

them, 
And  they  shall  be  as  if  I  had  not  loathed  them. 
For  I  am  Jahaveh  their  God,  and  I  will  answer  them. 

7  And  Ephraim  shall  be  like  a  hero. 

And  their  heart  shall  rejoice  as  with  wine  ; 

And  their  sons  shall  see  (it)  and  be  glad; 

Let  their  heart  rejoice  in  Jahaveh  ! 

I    will  hiss  for  them,   and  will  gather  them,  for"  I  have 

redeemed  them. 
And  they  multiply  as  they  multiply  {i.e.,  as  fast  as  they 

desire). 
9  And  I  will  sow  them  (as  seed)  among  the  nations. 
And  in  the  distant  lands  they  will  remember  me. 
And  live  with  their  sons,  and  return. 
10       And  I  will  bring  them  back  from  the  land  of  Egypt, 
And  from  A^ria  will  I  gather  them, 
And  to  the  land  of  Gilead  and  Lebanon  will  I  bring  them. 

6     "I  will  bring  them  back,"  or  "  I  will  place  them."     Both  readings  have  the 
authority  of  MSS.     See  the  note,  p.  276. 


THE   BOOK   OF   ZECHARIAH,  X.   lO-xi.  5.  Ixvii 

And  (place)  will  not  be  found  for  them. 

1 1  And    he   (Jahaveh)  passeth  through  the  sea    (where    is) 

affliction, 
And  smiteth  the  waves  in  the  sea, 
And  all  the  depths  of  the  River  {i.e.,  the  Nile)  dry  up, 
And  the  pride  of  Assyria  is  brought  down. 
And  the  sceptre  of  Egypt  passeth  away. 

12  And  (or,  For)  I  will  strengthen  them  in  Jahaveh, 
And  in  his  name  shall  they  walk. 

('Tis)  the  utterance  of  Jahaveh  ! 


CHAPTER  XL 

1  Open,  Lebanon,  thy  doors, 
And  let  the  fire  devour  thy  cedars  ! 

2  Howl,  cypress,  for  the  cedar  js  fallen  ! 
Because  the  glorious  ones  are  laid  waste. 
Howl,  oaks  of  Bashan, 

For  the  inaccessible  wood  descends  (goes  down) 

3  A  voice  of  lamentation  of  the  shepherds  ! 
For  laid  waste  is  their  splendour. 

A  voice  of  the  roaring  of  lions  ! 
For  wasted  is  the  pride  of  Jordan. 

4  Thus  saith  Jahaveh  my  God  : 
Feed  the  flock  of  slaughter, 

5  Whose  buyers  slay  them,  and  are  not  punished,  (or,  do  not 

feel  tJiemselves  ginlty). 
And  they  who  sell  them,  say  each, 
"  Blessed  be  Jahaveh,  that  I  am  rich  !  " 
And  as  for  their  shepherds, 
(Each)  spares  them  not. 

II     See  on  this  verse  pp.  294,  ff. 


Ixviii  THE  BOOK   OF  ZECIIARIAII,  xi.  6-1 5. 

6  For  I  will  not   spare   further  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth, 

('tis)  the  utterance  of  Jahaveh. 
And  behold  I  am  delivering  over  mankind, 
Each  into   the  hand    of  his   neighbour  and  into  the  hand 

of  his  king, 
And  they  shall  lay  waste  the  earth, 
And  I  will  not  deliver  from  their  hand. 

7  So  I  fed  the  flock  of  slaughter,  therefore  the  most  miser- 
able flock.  And  I  took  to  me  two  staves,  the  one  I  named 
Beauty,  and  the  other  I  named  Bands  (or.  Binders),  and    I 

8  fed  the  flock.  And  I  cut  off  the  three  shepherds  in  one 
month,  and  my  soul  was  wearied  with  them  (the  sheep), 

9  and  even  their  soul  loathed  me.  And  I  said,  I  will  not 
feed  you  ;  that  which  is  dying,  let  it  die,  and  that  which  is 
perishing,  let  it  perish,  and  as  for  the  rest,  let  them  eat 

10  each  one  the  flesh  of  its  companion.  And  I  took  my  staff. 
Beauty,  and  cut  it  asunder,  in  order  to  break  the  covenant, 

1 1  which  I  had  made  w^ith  all  the  nations.  And  it  was  broken 
in  that  day,  and  the  wretched  flock  knew  accordingly, 
they  who  observed  me,  that  it  was  the  word  of  Jahaveh. 

12  And  I  said  to  them.  If  be  it  good  in  your  eyes,  give 
me  my  wages,  and  if  not,  forbear.     Then  theywxMghed  out 

1 3  for  my  wages  thirty  pieces  of  silver.  And  Jahaveh  said 
to  me,  Fling  it  to  the  potter,  the  glorious  price,  at  which  I 
was  priced  by  them.  So  I  took  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver, 
and   I  flung   it,   in   the  house   of  Jahaveh,  to  the  potter. 

14  Then  I  cut  in  sunder  my  second  staff.  Bands,  in  order 
to  break  the  brotherhood,  between  Judah  and  between 
Israel. 

15  And  Jahaveh  said  to  me,  Take  unto  thee  yet  the  in- 
strument of  a  foolish  shepherd. 

13     Codd.  read  DSvI'D  "by  you,"  instead  of  "  by  them." 

15     Cod.  I  reads  the  plural   y?-     The  plural  is  generally   expressed  by    the 


THE   BOOK   OF   ZECHARIAH,  xi.   l6-xii.  3.  Ixix 

16  For  behold  I  am  raising  up  a  shepherd  in  the  land, 

The  perishing  he  will  not  visit,  the  scattered  he  will  not 

seek, 
The  broken  he  will  not  heal, 

The  strong  (lit.,  the  standing)  he  will  not  care  for. 
But  the  flesh  of  the  fat  he  will  eat. 
And  he  will  break  in  pieces  their  hoofs. 

17  Woe,  worthless  shepherd,  forsaking  the  flock  ! 
(May)  a  sword  (descend)  upon  his  arm, 

And  upon  his  right  eye  ! 

His  arm  verily  will  wither. 

And  his  right  eye  be  verily  blinded  ! 


CHAPTER     XII. 

1  Oracle  of  the  word  of  Jahaveh  concerning  Israel.  ('Tis) 
the  utterance  of  Jahaveh,  who  spreadeth  forth  the  heavens, 
and  foundeth  the  earth,  and  formeth  the  spirit  of  man  in  his 
midst  {i.e.,  within  him). 

2  Behold  I  am  making  Jerusalem  a  bowl  of  reeling  to  all  the 

peoples  round  about. 
And  also  over  Judah  shall   be  (the  reeling)  in  the  siege 
against  Jerusalem. 

3  And  it  shall  be  in  that  day,  I  will  make  Jerusalem  a  stone 

of  burden  to  all  the  peoples, 
Every  one  lifting  it  up  shall  verily  be  lacerated, 
And  against  her  shall  be  gathered  together 
All  the  nations  of  the  earth. 

16  Codd.  read  "1^3111,  "  and  the  scattered.''''     On  the  transl.  see  note  on  p.  350. 
So  also   Codd.  112^3111,  " and  the  strong.'''' 

17  See  notes  on  p.  347  and  p.  348. 
2     See  notes  on  p.  361  and  p.  362. 


Ixx  THE   BOOK   OF   ZECIIARIAII,  xii.  4- 10. 

4  In  that  day,  'tis  the  utterance  of  Jahaveh,   I  will  smite 

every  horse  with  terror, 
And  his  rider  w^ith  madness, 

But  upon  the  house  of  Judah  will  I  open  mine  eyes, 
And  every  horse  of  the  peoples 
I  will  smite  with  blindness. 

5  And  the  princes  of  Judah  shall  say  in  their  heart, 
A  strength  to  me  are  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem, 
Through  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  their  God. 

6  In  that  day  I  will  make  the  princes  of  Judah  as  a  pan  of 

fire  among  faggots, 

And  as  a  torch  of  fire  in  a  sheaf, 

And  they  shall  devour  upon  right  and  left  all  the  peoples 
round  about ; 

And  Jerusalem  shall  still  dwell  upon  her  base  in  Jeru- 
salem. 

7  And  Jahaveh  w^ill  save  the  tents  of  Judah  first, 

In  order  that  the  glory  of  the  house  of  David  may   not 

magnify  itself, 
And    the   glory   of    the   inhabitant    of    Jerusalem,    over 

Judah. 

8  In  that  day,  Jahaveh  will  defend  the  inhabitant  of  Jeru- 

salem, 
And  he  that  is  tottering  among  them  in  that  day  shall  be 

as  David, 
And  the  house  of  David  as  God, 
As  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh  before  them. 

9  And  it  shall  be  in  that  day, 

I  will  seek  to  destroy  all  the  nations 
Which  come  against  Jerusalem. 
10  And  I  will  pour  out  upon  the  house  of  David,  and  upon 
the  inhabitant  of  Jerusalem, 

8     Cod.  I  -[X'PDI   ''  atid  (/ic  Angel,'"  ^ic. 
10    See  note  on  p.  3S3. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ZECHARIx\H,  xli.  lO-xiii.  2,  Ixxi 

The  spirit  of  grace  and  of  supplication  ; 

And  they  shall  look  unto  me,  (him)  whom  they  pierced, 

And  they  shall  mourn  over  him, 

As  the  mourning  over  the  only  son, 

And  they  shall  make  a  bitter  mourning  over  him, 

As  one  is  bitter  (in  grief)  over  the  first-born. 

1 1  In  that  day  the  mourning  shall  be  great  in  Jerusalem, 
Like  the  mourning  of    Hadadrimmon    in    the  valley  of 

Megiddon. 

12  And  the  land  shall  mourn, 
Families  by  families  apart  ; 

The  family  of  the  house  of  David  apart,  and  their  wives 

apart. 
The  family  of  the  house  of  Nathan  apart. 
And  their  wives  apart — 

1 3  The  family  of  the  house  of  Levi  apart. 
And  their  wives  apart — 

The  family  of  the  Shimeite  apart. 
And  their  wives  apart — 

14  All  the  families  which  are  left, 
Families  by  families  apart, 
And  their  wives  apart. 


CHAPTER     XIIL 

1  In  that  day,  there  shall  be  a  fountain  opened,  for  the 
house  of  David,  and  for  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  for 
sin  and  for  uncleanness. 

2  And  it  shall  be  in  that  day,  'tis  the  utterance  of  Jahaveh 

1 1     The  word  Hadadrimmon  is  variously  written  in  MSS,  as  p?3~mn.  }1D''"l"in. 
pD-nn,  |in-)-nn,  pOI  lin,  Cod.  i    iimmn,  Vulg.  Adadremmon.      After  Ha- 
dadrimmon Codd.  5  insert  pCTltS  p,  but  incorrectly,  as  this  reading  has  crept 
in  from  the  Targum.     See  note  i,  p.  392.         Codd.  IIJ^O. 
I     On  the  LXX.  see  note  on  p.  409. 


Ixxii  THE   ROOK   OF   ZECHARIAII,  xiii.  2-8. 

of  hosts,  I  will  cut  off  the  names  of  the  idols  from  the 
land,  and  they  shall  not  be  remembered  again;  and  even 
the   prophets,  and  the  unclean  spirit  will  I  cause  to  pass 

3  away  from  the  land.  And  it  shall  be,  when  a  man  shall 
still  prophesy,  then  they  shall  say  to  him,  his  father  and 
his  mother,  they  that  bare  him,  "  Thou  shalt  not  live,  be- 
cause thou  hast  spoken  lies  in  the  name  of  Jahaveh;"  and 
they  shall  pierce  him  through,  his  father  and  his  mother, 
they  that  bare  him,  on  account  of  his  prophesying. 

4  And  it  shall  be  in  that  day,  that  the  prophets  shall  be 
ashamed  each  of  his  vision,  on  account  of  his  prophesying, 
and  they  shall   not  put  on   a  hairy   garment  in  order  to 

5  deceive.  And  he  will  say,  "  No  prophet  am  I,  a  man  a 
tiller   of  the  ground  am   I,  for  a  man  purchased  me  (as  a 

6  slave)  from  my  youth."  And  he  will  say  to  him,  "  What 
are  these  wounds  between  thine  hands.''"  And  he  will 
say,  "Those  with  which  I  have  been  wounded  in  the  house 
of  my  friends." 

7  Sword,  awake,  against  my  Shepherd, 
And  against  a  man,  my  fellow, 

('Tis)  the  utterance  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts  ; 

Smite  the  shepherd  that  the  sheep  may  be  scattered, 

And  I  will  turn  back  my  hand  upon  the  humble  ones. 

8  And  it  shall  be  in  all  the  land,  ('tis)  the  utterance  of  Jaha- 

veh, 
That  (two  parts  in  it) 
Shall  be  cut  off,  shall  expire. 
And  the  third  part  shall  be  left  in  it. 

4  Codd.  insert  TlV  aflcr  lu'^T.  Tlie  Taiguiii  .ind  Kinichi  seem  to  have 
had  this  reading. 

5  See  note  on  p.  426. 

6  See  p.  427,  and  the  note  there. 

7  On  "  w_j'/'//<7Ty,"  see  p.  435.  Baer  edits  ''na*J'm,  perf.  consecutive  with 
the  tone  on  the  ultimate,  on  the  authority  of  MSS.  and  editions.  Tlieile's  text  is 
TlTJ'ni,  with  the  accent  on  the  penult.  Tlie  word  is  then  the  ordinary  perf.,  and 
may  be  regarded  as  a  perf.  proph.   On  ''the  humble  ones"  see  p.  440  and  crit.  conim. 


THE   BOOK   OF   ZECHARIAH,  Xlll.  9-XIV.  5.  1 

9  And  I  will  bring  the  third  part  through  fire, 
And  I  will  try  them  as  silver  is  tried, 
And  I  will  prove  them  as  gold  is  proved, 
They  shall  call  on  my  name,  and  I  will  answer  them, 
I  will  say,  they  are  my  people. 
And  they  shall  say,  Jahaveh  (is)  my  God. 


CHAPTER     XIV. 

1  Behold,  a  day  is  coming  for  Jahaveh  ;   and  thy  spoil  is 

2  divided  in  thy  midst !  And  I  will  gather  all  the  nations 
to  Jerusalem,  to  the  battle ;  and  the  city  shall  be  taken, 
and  the  houses  shall  be  plundered,  and  the  women  defiled; 
and  half  of  the  city  shall  go  forth  into  captivity,  and  the 
remnant  of  the  people  shall  not  be  cut  off  from  the  city. 

3  And  Jahaveh  shall  go  forth,  and  fight  against  those  nations, 

4  as  in  a  day  of  his  fighting,  in  a  day  of  battle.  And  his 
feet  shall  stand  in  that  day  upon  the  mountain  of  the  olives 
which  is  before  Jerusalem  eastward,  and  the  mountain  of 
the  olives  shall  be  split  from  its  middle,  eastwards  and 
westwards  (lit,  seawards),  a  very  great  valley  ;  and  half  of 

5  the  valley  shall  move  northwards,  and  half  of  it  south- 
wards. And  ye  shall  flee  to  the  valley  of  my  mountains, 
for  a  valley  of  mountains  shall  extend  very  near  ;  and  ye 
shall  flee,  as  ye  fled  from  before  the  earthquake,  in  the 
days  of  Uzziah,  king  of  Judah;  and  Jahaveh  my  God  shall 

9     In  the  last  three  lines  the  singular  is  used  in  the  original. 

I     See  note  on  p.  455. 

3     On  the  LXX.  see  note  on  p.  464. 

5  "  A  valley  of  mountains,"  see  note  on  p.  471.  On  "ye  shall  flee,"  see  p. 
475  and  crit.  comm. 

Or  "  shall  extend  to  Azal "  see  note  on  p.  476. 

Many  MSS.  731,  "a)idany  The  copula  is  expressed  in  all  the  versions. 
Cod.  I,  Syr.,  Targ.,  VE^lp,  "■  his  saints."  Many  MSS.  ^W,  "  ivith  him;"'  and  so 
all  the  versions.     See  note  on  p.  479. 


Ixxiv  THE   BOOK   OF   ZECHARIAH,    xiv.  6-I4. 

6  come,  all  the  saints  with  thee  !  And  it  shall  be  in  that 
day,  there  shall  be  no  light,  the  precious  (things,  i.e.,  the 

7  lights)  shall  be  contracted.  And  it  shall  be  one  day,  it  is 
known  to  Jahaveh,  not  day,  and  not  night ;  and  it  shall 
be  that  at  eventide  there  shall  be  light. 

8  And  it  shall  be  in  that  day,  living  waters  shall  go  forth 
from  Jerusalem,  half  of  them  towards  the  eastern  sea,  and 
half  of  them  towards  the  hinder  (western)  sea  ;  in  summer 

9  and  in  winter  shall  it  be  (so).  And  Jahaveh  shall  be  as  king 
over  all  the  earth  ;  in  that  day  Jahaveh  shall  be  one,  and 

10  his  name  one.  All  the  land  shall  be  changed  (so  as  to 
become)  as  the  Arabah,  from  Geba  to  Rimmon,  south  of 
Jerusalem ;  and  she  shall  be  lifted  up,  and  shall  dwell  on  her 
base,  from  the  gate  of  Benjamin  to  the  place  of  the  first 
gate,  even  to  the  gate  of  the  corners,  and  from  the  tower 

1 1  of  Hananecl  even  to  the  king's  wine-presses.  And  they 
shall  dwell  in  her,  and  a  curse  shall  be  no  more,  and  Jeru- 

12  salem  shall  dwell  safely.  And  this  shall  be  the  plague, 
with  which  Jahaveh  shall  smite  all  the  peoples  which  go 
forth  against  Jerusalem  :  (namely)  to  consume  (or,  waste) 
their  flesh,  while  they  are  standing  upon  their  feet  ;  and 
their  eyes  shall  waste  away  in  their  sockets,  and  their 
tongues  shall  waste  away  in  their  mouths. 

13  And  it  shall  be  in  that  day,  there  shall  be  a  great  con- 
fusion from  Jahaveh  among  them;  so  that  they  shall 
seize  each  one  the  hand  of  his  companion,  and  his  hand 

14  shall  be  lifted  up  against  the  hand  of  his  companion.   And 


6     See  note  on  p.  481,  and  p.  482. 

10  Many  MSS.  read  nSIU^  instead  of  niiyD.  Baer  has  on  the  authority  of 
four  MSS.  pointed  nmi??  instead  of  '1^3,  that  is,  without  the  article,  and  so 
he  has  edited  in  Isa.  xxxiii.  9,  after  the  best  authorities.  If  this  reading  be 
adopted,  we  must  render  "  as  a  plain."     But  see  pp.  491,  fT. 

12  In  the  original  the  singular  is  chiefly  used  in  this  verse  ("his  flesh," 
"his  feet,"  "his  eyes,"  "his  tongue,"  but  "their  mouth"),  but  the  words  are 
evidently  employed  collectively. 


THE   BOOK   OF   ZECHARIAH,    xiv.    I4-2I.  Ixxv 

even   Judah   shall   fight   at   Jerusalem ;    and   the  wealth 
of  all  the   nations    round    about   shall   be   gathered  (by 

15  them),  gold,  and  silver,  and  garments  in  great  abundance. 
And  thus  will  be  the  plague  of  the  horse,  the  mule,  the 
camel,  and  the  ass,  and  of  all  the  cattle,  which  shall  be  in 

16  those  camps,  as  this  plague.  And  it  shall  be,  every  one 
who  is  left  of  all  the  nations  which  come  against  Jeru- 
salem, that  they  shall  go  up  year  by  year,  to  worship  as 

17  king  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  and  to  keep  the  feast  of  taber- 
nacles. And  it  shall  be,  they  who  go  not  up  of  the 
families  of  the  earth  to  Jerusalem  to  worship  as  king 
Jahaveh  of  hosts, — that  there  shall  be  no  rain  upon  them. 

18  And  if  the  family  of  Egypt  go  not  up  and  do  not 
come,  there  (shall)  not  (be)  upon  them  (any  rain)  ;  the 
plague  will  be  (upon  them),  with  which  Jahaveh  shall 
smite  the  nations,  who   go  not  up  to  keep  the  feast  of 

19  tabernacles.  This  shall  be  the  sin  (or,  punisJiuient)  of 
Egypt,  and  the  sin  (or,  piinishmeni)  of  all  the  nations,  who 

20  go  not  up  to  keep  the  feast  of  tabernacles.  In  that  day 
there  will  be  upon  the  bells  of  the  horses  "  Holiness  to 
Jahaveh  ;  "  and  the  pots  in  the  house  of  Jahaveh,  (shall  be) 

2 1  like  the  sacrificial-bowls  before  the  altar.  And  every  pot 
in  Jerusalem  and  in  Judah,  shall  be  holiness  to  Jahaveh  of 
hosts  ;  and  all  those  who  sacrifice  shall  come,  and  take  of 
them,  and  cook  in  them  ;  and  no  Canaanite  shall  be  any 
more  in  the  house  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  in  that  day. 

18  Codd.  4  omit  S71  before  DHvy,  and  so  LXX.  and  Syr.  Codd.  2  omit  tlie 
copula,  reading  Ka  Very  many  MSS.  insert  ?3  before  W''\^T[,^^ all  the  nations, ^^ 
but  the  Targ.  and  Syr.  have  not  this  reading,  though  it  is  found  in  the  LXX., 
Vulg.  and  Arab.  The  Oriental  Jews  read  D''?3yn"?3"nX,  "«//  the  peoples."  Some 
Codd.  D''0yn"?3.  The  verse  is  wanting  in  some  copies.  See  on  this  verse  the 
note  on  p.  508. 

20  See  note  on  p.  511.  For  ni7^*Q  many  MSS.  read  defectively  D^VD. 
"  Codd.  mult,  in  the  sing.  So  the  versions.  Codd.  niPDD.  Codd.  5  m?''D10." 
Davidson. 


CHAPTER     I. 


THE  FIRST  THREE    VISIONS. 


B 


CHAPTER     I. 


Ilaggai's  sermon  to  the  Jews  and  its  effect,  3 — Commencement  of  the  building  of 
the  temple,  4 — Significance  of  the  twenty-fourth  day,  4 — Visions  of  Zechariah,  4 
— Dreams,  5 — Not  mere  poetic  fancies,  6 — The  prophetic  horizon,  6 — Method 
of  discussion,  7 — The  First  Vision. — Its  scene,  8— View  of  Hitzig  and 
P^wald,  8 — Objections  to  their  view,  8 — Myrtle  trees  in  temple,  9 — Valley  of 
Vision,  10 — The  angelic  riders,  11 — Rider  on  the  red  horse,  11 — *'  Angel  that 
talked  with  me,"  12 — Angel  of  Jahaveh,  11,  21 — Fancied  correspondence  of  first 
and  seventh  visions,  12 — The  riders  in  the  Revelation,  13— The  colours  of  the 
steeds,  12 — Colours  used  simply  to  mark  off  the  three  divisions  of  riders,  12,  20 
— Keil's  explanation  of  colours  as  symbolical,  14 — View  of  Kohler,  15 — Views 
of  Ewald  and  others,  16 — Objections,  16 — Kliefoth's  interpretation,  17 — As- 
serted correspondence  with  Nebuchadnezzar's  dream  of  the  metallic  image,  17 — 
Kliefoth's  reply  to  objections,  18 — Report  of  the  celestial  riders,  20 — Interces- 
sion of  the  angel,  21,  23 — The  seventy  years,  22 — Answer  of  Jahaveh,  23 — Pur- 
port of  proclamation,  24 — God  angry  for  a  little  while,  25 — ^Sin  of  Gentiles,  25 — 
Promises,  25 — The  Second  Vision. — The  four  horns,  26 — Different  views,  27 
— Signify  hostile  kingdoms,  not  the  four  kingdoms  of  Daniel,  27 — View 
of  Ewald  and  Hitzig,  27— Pressel's  interpretation,  28 — "Judah,  Israel  and 
Jerusalem,"  28 — Different  views,  29-31 — Strange  interpretation  of  Kliefoth,  30 — 
The  four  smiths,  31 — Different  views,  31,32 — Why  smiths  specially  were  seen 
in  the  vision,  32 — Explanation  of  the  vision,  33 — The  Third  Vision. — Man 
with  measuring  line,  33 — Why  forbidden  to  measure  the  city,  34,  35 — Young 
man  not  the  prophet,  35 — The  growth  of  Jerusalem,  35,  36 — Exiles  ordered  to 
flee  out  of  Babylon,  37 — ^Judgments  on  Babylon,  38,  39 — Rock  of  Behistun, 
38 — Conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  39,  40 — Advent  of  Jahaveh,  39 — The  spiritual 
Jerusalem,  40 — Judah  and  Israel,  40 — The  "  Holy  Land,"  41. 


ZECHARIAH  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE   FIRST   THREE   VISIONS. 

The  day  of  the  New  Moon,  that  is  the  first  day  of  the  month 
of  Elul,  or  September,  in  the  second  year  of  Darius  Hystaspis 
(B.C.  520),  was  a  day  of  peculiar  importance  to  the  Jewish 
exiles  who  had,  in  accordance  with  the  decree  of  Cyrus, 
returned  to  the  land  of  their  forefathers.  As  the  day  of  the 
New  Moon  was  a  day  in  which  the  Jews  were  wont  to  gather 
themselves  before  God,  and  to  offer  up  sacrifices  on  the  altar 
which  had  been  erected  among  the  ruins  of  the  temple  of 
Solomon,  the  time  was  a  peculiarly  fitting  one  in  which  to 
remind  them  of  the  continued  desolation  of  the  house  of  God, 
and  of  their  duty  in  respect  thereto.  Filled  with  the  Spirit 
of  God,  Haggai,  called  to  be  a  prophet  in  Israel,  preached  on 
the  occasion  a  remarkable  discourse,  in  which  he  stirred  up 
the  people  to  repentance,  and  especially  exhorted  their 
leaders  to  "  consider  their  ways."  His  sermon  seems  to  have 
produced  an  instantaneous  effect  The  heads  of  the  Jewish 
colony,  who  had  previously  been  wont  to  excuse  their  own 
tardiness  by  pointing  to  the  serious  hindrances  placed  in  the 
way  of  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  by  the  adversaries  of 
Judah  and  Jerusalem,  were  aroused  to  consider  their  own 
negligence,  and  forthwith  took  counsel  together  with  respect 
to  the  restoration  of  the  sacred  building.      Ere  the    month 


4  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS    TROPHECIES.  [Ch.  i.  1-7. 

came  to  a  close,  on  the  twenty-fourth  day,  or  within  three 
weeks  of  the  appeal  of  Haggai,  the  people,  headed  by 
Zerubbabel,  the  pasha  of  Judah,  and  Joshua,  the  High  Priest, 
"  came  and  did  work  in  the  house  of  Jahaveh  of  Hosts,"  the 
God  of  Israel. 1 

The  twenty-fourth  day  of  the  month  was  a  day  of  very 
peculiar  significance  to  the  restored  colony.  On  that  day  the 
people  recommenced  the  work  on  the  ruins  of  the  temple 
(Hag.  i.  14,  15),  probably  by  removing  the  accumulated 
rubbish,  and  by  making  preparations  for  the  extensive  build- 
ing operations.  The  Lord,  who  had  given  a  manifold  proof 
of  his  presence  with  his  people  (Hag.  i.  13)  by  raising  up 
one  prophet  among  them,  raised  up  a  second  likewise. 
In  the  eighth  month  Zechariah  was  filled  with  the  spirit  of 
prophecy,  and  preached,  as  Haggai  had  done,  a  sermon 
calling  the  people  to  repentance.  In  the  succeeding  month 
(December,  or  Kislev),  on  the  twenty-fourth  day,  the  same  day 
three  months  after  the  work  had  been  recommenced,  Haggai 
received  both  his  third  and  fourth  revelation,  being  the  last 
revelations  vouchsafed  to  him  (Hag.  ii.  10,  20).  It  was  no 
doubt  owing  to  the  work  done  in  connection  with  the  re- 
storation of  the  temple  that  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  the 
month  attained  its  special  importance,  and  was  honoured  by 
being  made  a  day  of  Divine  revelation.  Two  months  later, 
therefore,  on  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  the  month  (the  month 
Shebat),  Zechariah  saw  the  wonderful  visions,  which  form  the 
chief  portion  of  the  first  six  chapters  of  his  book.  It  was 
likewise  on  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  the  first  month,  after 
having  previously  fasted  and  mourned  for  three  full  weeks, 
that  Daniel  had  received  the  vision  of  the  "things  noted  in 
the  scripture  of  truth  "  (Dan.  x.  21). 

^  The  time  intervening  was  no  doubt  a  season  of  earnest  prayer  on  the  part  of 
the  prophet  Haggai,  though  it  is  fanciful  to  seek  to  compare  this  instance  with 
the  three  weeks'  fast  of  the  prophet  Daniel,  or  even  to  compare  with  the  latter 
the  three  weeks  inferentially  alluded  to  in  Hag.  ii.  i,  as  Liaunigarten  has  done. 


Ch.  i.  1-7.]  INTRODUCTORY.  5 

The  visions  of  Zechariah  are  introduced  by  the  phrase, 
"  The  word  of  Jahaveh  came  to  Zechariah,  the  son  of  Bere- 
chiah,  the  son  of  Iddo,  the  prophet,  saying,"  inasmuch  as  it 
Avas  through  the  visions  which  the  prophet  saw  that  the  will 
of  Jahaveh  was  communicated  to  him.  As  Isaiah  and  Amos 
are  spoken  of  as  having  seen  the  word  which  they  were  com- 
missioned to  deliver  concerning  Judah  and  Jerusalem  (Isa. 
i.  I  ;  ii.  I  ;  Amos.  i.  i),  so  the  prophet  Zechariah  styles  the 
visions  which  he  saw,  "  the  word  of  the  Lord  which  came  to 
him."  1 

The  visions  were  seen  by  Zechariah  on  the  night  with 
which,  according  to  the  Jewish  mode  of  reckoning,  the 
twenty-fourth  day  commenced.  The  phrase,  "  I  saw  in  the 
night,"  probably  indicates  this  (Keil),  though  it  can  scarcely 
be  translated  by,  "  in  this  night,"  as  some  have  proposed.^ 

Ewald  and  others  consider  that  Zechariah  received  his 
visions  in  a  real  dream  of  the  night  season,  while  Hengsten- 
berg  thinks  that  the  prophet  saw  them  in  a  waking  condition 
during  the  night,  when  his  mind  was  more  susceptible  of 
heavenly  impressions.  The  expression,  "in  a  dream,  in  a 
vision  of  the  night"  (Job  xxxiii.  15),  or  in  "a  dream  of  a 
night   vision "  (Isa.  xxix.  7),  is    not  used,  and,  therefore,  it 

'  The  expression  "saying"  is  sometimes  used  to  introduce  what  is  written,  as 
well  as  what  is  spoken  ;  2  Kings  x.  6  ;  2  Chron.  xxi.  12,  where  ItOJ^p  is  used  ; 
and  comp.  i  Mace.  viii.  31,  Luke  i.  63,  where  its  equivalent,  Xeyioy,  occurs,  as 
also  Joseph.  Aittiq.  xi.  4,  §  7. 

2  So  Rosenmiiller,  Pressel,  etc.  It  can  scarcely  indicate  the  whole  night 
through  (as  Lange  seems  to  consider),  nor  does  the  translation  of  our  Authorised 
Version  seem  to  us  to  express  the  sense  of  the  original,  "by  night,"  i.e.,  in  the 
night  season,  as  if  stress  were  laid  upon  the  season,  as  that  in  which  the  spirit  of 
man  is  more  withdrawn  from  the  outward  world  and,  therefore,  is  more  susceptible 
for  receiving  visions  from  above.  The  translation,  "by  night,"  is  that  of  the 
Vulg.,  Jer.  and  Luth.,  and  is  adopted  among  modern  critics  by  Ewald  and  Kohler. 
The  translation  proposed  by  Baumgarten  and  Neumann,  ' '  I  saw  out  into  the 
night,"  making  the  night  the  object  of  the  verb  preceding  (after  the  analogy 
of  Gen.  i.  4),  is  decidedly  fanciful.  The  night  in  such  a  translation  must  be 
regarded  as  used  emblematically,  either  in  reference  to  the  darkness  of  the  visions 
afterwards  recorded  (Jerome,  Calov.^,  or  of  the  times  then  present  (Neumann), 
or  of  the  times  to  come. 


6  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  i.  1-7. 

is  more  natural  to  suppose  that  the  visions  were  seen  in  a 
prophetic  ecstasy,  or  trance.  The  use  of  such  words  as  "  I 
saw,"  "  I  hfted  up  mine  eyes,"  is  not  by  any  means  con- 
clusive against  Ewald's  view,  though  Pressel  seems  to  regard 
it  as  being  so.  In  dreams  we  imagine  that  we  make  use  of 
our  bodily  organs.  Nor  is  even  the  statement  "  he  waked  me 
as  a  man  is  waked  out  of  his  sleep  "  (chap.  iv.  i,  2)  opposed 
to  this  idea;  for  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  even  in  ordi- 
nary dreams  it  occasionally  happens  that  one  dreams  that  he 
dreams,  and  may  dream  too  of  being  awakened  out  of  that 
dreamy  slumber.  That  the  prophet  was  in  a  somnambulous 
state  is  an  idea  which  must  be  altogether  rejected.  Persons 
in  such  a  state  do  not  remember  what  they  have  seen  or 
done,  while  the  very  opposite  was  the  case  of  the  prophet  ; 
and,  moreover,  the  sickly  state  of  such  a  condition  is  utterly 
unsuited  for  any  true  revelation  from  above  (Pressel). 

The  visions  of  Zcchariah  were  not  mere  creations  of  the 
mind,  like  those  of  Dante.  The  prophet  was  himself  ignorant 
of  the  meaning  of  much  which  he  saw  in  the  visions,  and  had 
to  seek  to  have  it  explained.  He  recounted  what  he  had 
seen  or  heard.  Yet,  at  the  same  time,  the  visions  all  bear  the 
impress  of  the  prophet's  own  personality,  and  of  the  times  in 
which  he  lived  and  worked  (Pressel).  Because  the  rationalist 
has  sought  to  deny  or  explain  away  all  traces  of  the  super- 
natural in  Holy  Writ,  we  ought  not  to  seek  to  obliterate  all 
traces  of  the  natural.  We  cannot,  however,  agree  with  Riehm 
that  every  prophet  was  so  far  limited  as  to  his  foresight, 
that  his  historical  horizon  circumscribed  his  prophetic  vision. 
The  horizon  of  a  prophet,  according  to  Riehm,  only  ex- 
tended so  far  as  the  prophet's  present,  considered  in  the  light 
of  the  Divine  counsels,  bore  in  its  bosom  the  events  of  the 
future.  But  while  we  do  not  coincide  with  this  view,  we 
maintain  that  the  prophetical  visions  of  the  Old  Tcstamen_t^ 
naturally  arise  from  the  ground  of  the  prophets'  own  present, 


Ch.  i.  1-7.]  INTRODUCTORY.  7 

and  that  even  when  distant  future  is  depicted,  it  is  depicted 


in  the  Rght  and  with  the  colours  of  their  own  day.  The 
horizon  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets  was  the  first  advent 
of  the  Messiah,  and  though  occasionally  they  may  appear  to 
pass  beyond  that  grand  event,  to  which  they  looked  as  the 
great  object  of  expectation,  the  exception  proves  the  rule,  for 
"the  last  things"  were  presented  to  their  view  as  imme- 
diately connected  with  the  manifestation  of  the  Messiah. 
This  principle  is  remarkably  illustrated  in  the  prophecies  of 
Zechariah,  and  those  writers  widely  err  who  fancy  that 
minute  details  of  events  destined  to  occur  in  the  end  of  the 
world  are  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament,  although  passed 
over  in  silence  by  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  many  a  point  connected 
with  what  is  termed  "  the  higher  criticism,"  must  needs  be 
here  omitted,  which  will  come  under  examination  elsewhere. 
Our  intention  is  to  survey  the  book  of  Zechariah  as  a  whole, 
in  connection  with  the  various  conflicting  interpretations  of 
its  several  passages ;  several  questions  connected  with  the 
authorship  and  composition  of  the  book  will  be  reserved  for 
treatment  in  our  Introduction.  If  on  any  point  we  appear 
unfairly  to  assume  what  ought  first  to  be  proved,  it  is  because 
our  proofs  will  be  adduced  elsewhere,  and  not  because  we 
wish  to  shrink  from  the  due  examination  of  the  points  in 
dispute.  We  shall  endeavour  fairly  to  state  the  views  of  those 
from  whom  we  may  differ,  without  ungenerous  insinuations  as 
to  the  ground  on  which  that  diff"erence  of  opinion  is  based. 
The  best  apology  for  what  we  regard  to  be  the  true  interpre- 
tation is  not  to  present  it  alone  by  itself,  but  to  compare  it 
with  the  various  other  explanations  which  have  been  sug- 
gested. If  we  err  in  any  particular,  our  error  will  thus  be 
more  easily  detected  ;  and  if  our  interpretation  be  correct,  its 
truth  will  more  clearly  be  seen.  The  more  calmly  such 
points  are  discussed  the  better,  although  we  do  not  mean  to 


8  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  i.  8. 

conceal  our  opinion  that  some  of  these  points  arc  of  the  very 
highest  importance. 

The  scene  of  the  visions  is  supposed  by  Ewald  and  Hitzig 
to  have  been  the  tabernacle  of  God,  the  heavenly  palace,  in 
the  courts  of  which,  after  the  analogy  of  the  earthly  temple, 
there  were  seen  myrtle  trees,  those  trees  being  peculiarly 
suitable  to  be  described  as  growing  in  its  courts,  on  account 
of  their  dark  and  glittering  green  colour,  and  of  the  sweet 
odour  with  which  their  flowers  perfume  the  air.  That  such 
trees  were  actually  planted  in  the  courts  of  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem,  has  been  asserted  on  the  authority  of  two  passages 
in  the  Psalms,  and  from  a  passage  in  2  Mace.  But  it  is  by 
no  means  certain  that  any  such  conclusion  can  be  really 
drawn  from  those  passages.^  Ewald  thinks  that  the  prophet 
saw  the  angels  who  had  patrolled  the  earth  during  the  day- 
time, riding  towards  the  heavenly  tabernacle,  on  horses  of 
various  colours,  from  the  four  quarters  of  heaven,  in  order  to 

^  The  passages  are  Ps.  lii.  lo  (ver.  8  in  E.V. )  ;  xcii.  13,  14  ;  2  Mace.  xiv.  4. 
Grotius  in  his  note  on  2  Mace,  renders  that  passage  by,  "moreover,  of  the  boughs 
solemnly  consecrated  in  the  temple,"  and  notes  that  there  were  many  offerings 
belonging  to  the  temple,  among  which  there  were  not  a  few  imitations  of  trees 
in  gold,  etc.  In  his  notes  on  I.uke  xxi.  5,  Grotius  adduces  further  proofs  from 
Philo  and  Josephus,  and  makes  special  mention  of  the  golden  vine  given  by 
Herod  the  Great,  and  of  that  previously  belonging  to  the  temple,  presented  by 
Arislobulus  to  Pompey  (Joseph.  Antiq.  xiv.  3,  §  i  ;  Tac.  Hist.  v.  5).  But  see  crit. 
comm.  In  that  case  the  constmction  of  the  words  in  2  Mace,  Trpos  hk  roi^rots  tC:v 
fo/xi^-o/x^vuv  daWuv  toO  IfpoO,  must  be  regarded  as  equal  to  rims  twv  6a\\uiv  tQv 
Tov  lepov  pofii^o/j.^vuv  (Vulg.  qui  tevipli  esse  videbanhir).  Grimm  objects  to  this 
explanation,  that  it  is  scarcely  likely  that  the  temple,  at  such  a  period,  so  shortly 
after  the  desolations  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  could  have  had  many  such  votive 
offerings ;  that  Alcimus  had  no  admission  to  the  temple  and  therefore  could  not 
liave  taken  away  such  votive  offerings  ;  and,  moreover,  that  to  express  such  a 
meaning,  OaKKCiv  should  have  been  placed  before  twv  voiii^oixivwv ,  and  not  after 
it.  Hence  he  prefers  to  translate  the  passage,  with  De  Wette,  "of  the  customary 
olive-twigs  of  the  temple,"  i.e.,  those  which  used  to  be  brought  from  the  temple  to 
a  king  when  homage  was  done  to  him  on  his  entrance  upon  his  government. 
According  to  Grimm's  explanation  the  olive  trees  must  have  been  grown  in  the 
temple  courts.  But  where  is  the  custom  referred  to  elsewhere  spoken  of?  The 
passage  is  too  doubtful  to  found  much  upon  it  ;  6a\\o(,  though  used  of  olive 
branches,  might  also  indicate  palm  branches. 


Ch.  i.  8.]         THE   FIRST   VISION — THE   ANGEL-RIDERS.  9 

give  in  their  report  of  what  they  had   seen  on  earth,   and 
to  receive  directions  from  the  Lord  of  all. 

This  is  not  the  picture  of  the  scene  which  would  be  na- 
turally drawn  from  the  words  of  the  original,  as  they  appear 
in  the  ordinary  Hebrew  text,  or  as  translated  in  any  of  the 
ancient  versions.  The  view  of  Hitzig  and  Ewald  is  com- 
pletely novel.  In  order  to  obtain  any  basis  on  which  to  build 
such  an  opinion,  a  punctuation  of  the  Hebrew  text  must  be 
adopted  which  is  supported  by  no  ancient  authority.  To 
adduce  the  expression,  "  His  pavilion  round  about  him,"  in 
Ps.  xviii.  12  (ver.  ii  in  E.V.),  or  "the  noise  (thunder)  of  his 
tabernacle  "  (Job  xxxvi.  29),  in  support  of  the  reading  "  taber- 
nacle "  here,  is  vain,  as  a  different  word  is  used  in  both  these 
passages.^  However  ingenious  the  interpretation,  it  is  toler- 
ably plain  that  the  view  adopted  has  suggested  the  alteration 
of  the  Hebrew  punctuation,  and  then  the  latter  is  used  in  its 
turn  to  support  the  theory.  Few  persons  acquainted  with 
the  common  use  of  symbolical  and  figurative  language  in  the 
sacred  writings  will  be  disposed  to  agree  with  Hitzig,  when 
he  seeks  to  account  for  the  residence  of  God  in  heaven  being 
represented  as  a  tent,  by  asserting  that  the  tabernacle,  after 
it  had  long  vanished  from  history,  was  considered  to  have 
been  caught  up  to  heaven,  with  the  ark  of  testimony  and  the 
pot  of  manna,  w^hich  statement  he  vainly  attempts  to  prove 
from  two  passages  in  the  Revelation  (Rev.  xi.  19,  and  ii.  17). 
Much  more  simple  and  in  accordance  with  the  original  is  it 
to  suppose  that  the  scene  of  the  first  vision  is  described  as  a 
shady  and    deep   valley.     The  article  may  be  satisfactorily 

'  It  is  strange  for  Hitzig  to  argue  that  the  use  of  the  article  with  the  word 
translated  in  our  A.V.,  "the  bottom  "  (but  by  Hitzig  and  Ewald,  "■  the  tent"),  is  a 
proof  that  the  prophet  speaks  of  something  well  known,  not  of  anything  here 
mentioned  for  the  first  time.  For  the  existence  of  the  article  is  only  indicated  by 
the  Masoretic  vocalization,  and  if  that  pointing  needs  correction,  as  Hitzig  main- 
tains, in  one  part  of  the  word,  how  can  any  argument  be  derived  from  that  vocali- 
zation in  another  syllable  of  the  same  ?     (See  our  crit.  comm.  on  this  verse. ) 


10  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   TROPHECIES.  [Ch.  i.  8. 

accounted  for  as  denoting  the  special  valley  seen  by  the 
prophet  in  the  vision  (so  Kliefoth,  Kohler,  Keil).  It  might 
indicate  some  particular  valley  presented  to  the  prophet's 
view ;  a  valley  where  myrtle  trees  grew  in  considerable 
numbers,  and  which  was  well  known  to  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem  in  that  day.  If  such  a  shady  valley  existed  not 
far  from  Jerusalem,  it  would  have  been  peculiarly  suitable  to 
have  been  represented  as  the  scene  of  this  first  vision  ;  as 
in  this  vision  Jahaveh's  gracious  return  to  His  people  and  city 
is  described.^ 

In  this  deep  valley  the  prophet  saw  a  man  riding  on  a  red 
horse,  who  was  halting  among  the  myrtle  trees.  Behind  him 
were  a  number  of  horsemen,  mounted  on  steeds  of  different 
colours.  The  riders,  indeed,  on  these  horses  arc  not  expressly 
mentioned,  but  verse  lo  clearly  implies  that  riders  were  seen 
sitting  on  the  horses.  The  riders  themselves  are  not  specially 
mentioned,  because  (as  Hitzig  conjectures)  the  horses  on  which 
they  sat  would  naturally  first  come  into  view  ;  and  the  colour 
of  the  horses,  whereby  the  band  was  seen  to  be  composed  of 
three  distinct   divisions,   was  the   point  of  chief  importance. 

'  No  other  explanation  is  needed  of  this  feature  in  the  vision.  Ewald's  idea, 
suggested  by  the  translation  of  theLXX.,  that  the  myrtles  spoken  of  here  are  to  be 
thought  of  as  growing  between  the  two  mountains  of  brass  mentioned  in  chap,  vi., 
which  correspond  to  the  two  chief  mountains  of  Jerusalem,  must  be  considered 
elsewhere.  It  is  entirely  based  on  the  idea  of  the  assumed  correspondence  of 
the  two  visions,  which  view  cannot  be  considered  as  proven.  Many  other  expla- 
nations have  been  given,  such  as  that  of  the  Targum,  followed  by  Kimchi,  that 
the  valley  represented  Babylon,  to  which  the  Jews  had  been  deported  on  account 
of  their  sin,  and  that  the  myrtle  trees  represent  the  Israelites  in  Babylon,  who 
possessed  the  sweet  odour  of  the  commandments  of  God.  Venema,  after  Jerome, 
adopts  this  view  as  to  the  signification  of  the  myrtle  trees,  and  adduces  various 
reasons  why  saints  are  described  as  myrtles  ; — because  the  myrtle  is  ever  green  ; 
because  it  abounds  with  sap,  symbolising  the  operations  of  the  Spirit,  and  because 
that  sap  is  bitter,  opposed  to  corruption,  indicating  the  principle  of  immortality. 
We  consider  such  expositions  as  sacred  trifling.  Or  that  the  valley  represents  the 
kingdom  of  God  in  its  outwardly  depressed  condition,  but  still  under  the  gracious 
protection  of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  {Hcitgstaibcrg).  Or  that  that  vale  depicts 
the  abyss-like  power  of  the  kingdom  of  the  world  (Biutiitgartcii).  Nor  can 
we  agree  with  Keil  that  the  myrtle  thicket  is  "  undoubtedly  "  (which  is  rather 


Ch.  i.  8,  9.]      THE   FIRST   VISION — THE  ANGEL-RIDERS.  1 1 

The  rider  on  the  red  horse,  who  is  specially  noted,  was  in 
advance  of  the  others,  who  are  represented  as  having  been 
"  behind  him."  He  must  not  be  identified,  as  many  commen- 
tators imagine,  with  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh,  who  stood  also 
between  the  myrtle  trees,  and  to  whom  both  he  and  his  fellow 
riders  reported  the  condition  of  the  Gentile  world.  If  the 
Angel  of  Jahaveh  was  really  identical  with  the  rider  on 
the  red  horse,  that  rider  would  have  been  represented  as 
standing  opposite  to  the  other  horsemen,  and  they  would  not 
have  been  spoken  of  as  "  behind  him."  Moreover,  though  the 
rider  on  the  red  horse  was  the  leader  and  chief  of  the  band 
of  angelic  riders,  he  was  also  a  member  of  one  of  the  sub- 
divisions of  which  that  band  was  composed,  inasmuch  as  he 
was  mounted  upon  a  steed  of  a  red  colour,  and  not  of  a  colour 
distinct  from  the  rest.  We  must  not,  if  we  desire  to  avoid 
endless  confusion,  permit  ourselves  to  be  led  by  the  authority 
of  eminent  commentators  to  identify  either  the  Angel  of 
Jahaveh  or  the  rider  on  the  red  horse  with  the  interpreting 
angel  so  often  spoken  of  in  the  first  six  chapters.  The  in- 
terpreting angel  generally  stands  as  it  were  outside  of  the 
visions,    and  seldom    takes  any    other  part    in   them,    than 

strong  language)  an  image  of  the  theocracy,  or  of  the  land  of  Judah,  as  a  land  dear 
and  pleasant  of  the  Lord  (comp.  Dan.  viii.  9  ;  xi.  16),  because  the  myrtle  is  a 
favourite  plant  for  decorations  ;  and  that  the  depth  in  which  the  myrtle  wood  lay 
can  only  be  a  figure  of  the  deep  humiliation  of  that  land.  It  might  indeed  be  used 
as  a  suitable  figure  of  the  oppressed  condition  of  Israel,  as  a  symbol  of  misfortune, 
as  Lange,  Rosenmliller,  and  others  think.  Lange  appeals  to  Ps.  xxiii.  4  (ver.  5  in 
E.V.),  and  Ps.  Ixxxiv.  7  (ver.  8  in  E.V.)  It  might  possibly  refer  to  the  ravine  of 
the  fountain  of  Siloah  (v.  Hofmann,  PVeis.  u.  Erf.,  i.  333),  if  only  myrtles  actually 
grew  there  at  that  day.  The  picture  of  a  valley  may  have  been  given  because  of  the 
myrtle  trees,  which  generally  grow  best  in  valleys  and  by  streams,  as  Virg.  Georg. 
ii.  112,  litora  myrtetis  latissima,  and  iv.  1 24,  amantes  litora  myrti.  Hitzig's 
suggestion  needs  only  mention,  namely,  that  the  trees  are  here  alluded  to  as 
those  to  which  the  angelic  riders  could  bind  their  steeds.  As  equally  fanciful,  though 
in  another  direction,  we  must  regard  the  suggestion  of  Neumann,  that  the  valley 
represents  the  fields  of  everlasting  salvation,  perfumed  by  heavenly  love,  inasmuch 
as  the  myrtle  is  used  among  the  Jews  as  a  symbol  of  heavenly  love,  and  the  pious 
Jews  sometimes  adorn  themselves  with  three  sprigs  of  myrtle  on  the  Sabbath 
days.     Myrtles  were  indigenous  to  Palestine,  see  Smith's  Bibl.  Diet, 


12  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  i.  8,  9. 

to  interrogate  other  angels,  and  to  point  out  to  the  prophet 
the  special  features  of  a  vision  or  the  signification  thereof 

The  interpreting  angel  is  frequently  characterised  through- 
out the  book  by  "  the  angel  that  talked  with  me,"  as  our 
Authorised  Version  has  correctly  translated  it.  Dr.  Pusey 
and  others  have  called  attention  to  the  phrase  in  the  original, 
which  might  be  rendered  "  spake  in  me."  Dr.  Pusey  observes 
that  this  "  very  rare  expression  seems  meant  to  convey  the 
thought  of  an  inward  speaking,  whereby  the  words  should  be 
borne  directly  into  the  soul,  without  the  intervention  of  the 
ordinary  outward  organs."  It  must,  however,  be  noted  that 
the  phrase  in  question  is  used  in  the  sense  of  to  speak  of  a 
person  (i  Sam.  xix.  3  ;  Deut.  vi.  7),  to  speak  against  one 
(Num.  xxi.  7),  and  to  speak  tJiroiigJi  one  as  an  interpreter 
(Num.  xii.  2,  etc.).  It  is  also  used  of  communing  ivith  a 
person  (Num.  xii.  6,  8  ;  I  Sam.  xxv.  39),  and  even  of  speaking 
to  a  person  (Hos.  i.  2  ;  Hab.  ii.  i).  Ewald  considers  that  the 
preposition  used  conveys  the  idea  of  the  address  of  a  superior 
to  an  inferior  (see  crit.  comm.).  The  Targumist  has  correctly 
given  the  sense  found  in  our  Authorised  Version,  though 
the  LXX.  and  Jerome  seem  to  have  regarded  the  expression 
as  peculiar.  Puscy's  idea  is  scarcely  correct ;  for  what  the 
prophet  heard  from  the  angel  is  narrated  as  communicated  to 
him  by  word  of  mouth.  Nor  is  there  any  propriety  in  one 
angel  being  denoted  as  "  the  angel  that  spake  in  me,"  nor 
that  "talked  by  me"  (Drake),  for,  inasmuch  as  the  visions 
narrated  are  purely  subjective,  all  the  speeches  might  have 
been  similarly  so  described. 

The  variety  of  colours  in  the  horses  is  no  doubt  signifi- 
cant ;  but  there  is  a  considerable  diversity  of  opinion  as  to 
what  one  of  the  colours  mentioned  actually  is,  and  as  to  the 
signification  of  the  colours  in  general. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  identify  the  horses  in  this 
vision  with  those   mentioned  in  the  seventh  and  last  ;  but  the 


Ch.  i.  S-ii.]      THE   FIRST   VISION   THE  ANGEL-RIDERS.  1 3 

seventh  vision  is  in  its  character  and  scope  very  dififerent  from 
the  first.  White  and  red  horses  were  seen  in  both  the 
visions  ;  but  with  that  feature  all  similarity  ends.  The  place 
at  which  the  riders  on  horses  are  seen  to  arrive  in  the  first 
vision,  and  that  from  which  the  persons  driven  in  chariots  go 
forth  in  the  latter,  are  entirely  different.  It  needs  no  little 
ingenuity  and  critical"  torturing  of  both  texts  to  make  out 
any  such  correspondence  between  the  two  visions  as  would 
justify  the  interpretation  of  the  terms  used  in  one  as  ex- 
planatory of  those  used  in  the  other,  or  to  justify  the  attempt 
to  supply  the  gaps,  assumed  to  exist  in  the  first  vision,  by  the 
incidents  recorded  in  the  latter.  In  the  latter  black  horses 
are  spoken  of,  which  do  not  appear  in  the  first  vision  ;  even 
if  (without  any  authority  whatever)  we  should  seek  to  identify 
the  colour  which  is  named  third  in  the  first  chapter  with  that 
mentioned  in  the  fourth  place  in  chap.  vi.  Three  colours  only 
are  mentioned  in  the  first  vision  ;  four  at  least  are  spoken 
of  in  the  seventh. 

It  is  more  natural  that  attempts  should  have  been  made  to 
compare  those  passages  in  the  book  of  the  Revelation,  in 
which  similar  symbols  occur,  with  this  vision  of  Zechariah. 
The  riders  mentioned  in  the  first  four  seals  of  the  Revelation 
are  represented  as  going  forth  on  their  different  errands  on 
horses  of  four  dififerent  colours  (Rev.  vi.  i-8).  And  at  the  close 
of  the  book  (chap.  xix..ii,  14),  the  armies  of  heaven  are  spoken 
of  as  following  their  leader  on  the  white  horse,  who  was  named 
Faithful  and  True,  and  riding  forth  like  him  on  white  horses. 

But  much  caution  must  be  exercised  lest  what  is  only 
similar  be  regarded  as  identical.  For  it  does  not  necessarily 
follow  that  the  symbols  in  a  later  prophet  are  to  be  regarded 
as  explanatory  of  those  which  may  occur  in  passages  of  an 
earlier  writer ;  unless,  indeed,  it  can  be  proved  that  the  ob- 
ject of  the  writers  is  necessarily  identical.^ 

^  In  the  consideration  of  the  vision  before  us,  we  pass  over  the  bold  and  original 


14  ZECHARIAII   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  i.  8-11. 

As  to  the  colours  red  and  white,  there  is  little  difiference 
of  opinion  save  as  to  their  shades.  The  third  colour  has  been 
rendered  by  our  Authorised  Version  "  speckled,"  apparently 
on  the  authority  of  the  ancient  versions.  But  the  meaning 
assigned  in  our  margin,  namely  "  bay  "  or  "  chestnut,"  is  no 
doubt  the  true  one,  and  is  substantially  that  approved  of  by 
Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  and  Fiirst.  Possibly  a  somewhat 
clearer  red  than  is  signified  by  the  first  adjective  may  be  indi- 
cated. The  fact  that  a  reddish  colour  of  some  kind  is  implied 
by  the  word  renders  it  impossible  to  refer  to  the  "  pale  " 
horse  of  Rev.  vi.  in  explanation  of  the  vision.  The  Hebrew 
word  does  not  mean  "  ashen-gray "  (Pusey),  and  though  we 
freely  grant  that  "a  mingled  colour  like  chestnut  is  not  sug- 
gestive of  any  symbol "  (Pusey),  it  is  not  our  business  to 
construct  symbols,  but  to  interpret  the  vision  as  it  is. 

The  machinery  of  the  vision  of  Zechariah  is  totally  different 
from  that  employed  in  the  first  four  seals  of  the  book  of 
Revelation.  The  colours  of  the  horses  in  the  latter  have 
evidently  a  symbolical  signification,  in  Zechariah  they  are 
simply  employed  to  mark  the  division  of  the  angelic  riders 
into  three  distinct  bands. 

Keil,  and  other  eminent  commentators,  consider  that  the 
celestial  riders  are  represented  as  going  forth  to  take  an  ac- 
tive part  in  the  shaking  of  the  nations,  which  God  had  already 
promised  by  the  mouth  of  Haggai,  and  to  conduct  any 
agitations  and  tumults  which  might  occur  among  the  nations 
to  the  definite  end  appointed  by  Providence.  According  to 
this  theory  the  riders  were  to  act  severally  in  the  manner 
symbolically    indicated    by  the  colours    of   their  respective 

i<lca  of  rrcssel,  viz.,  tliat  the  horses  in  the  vision  were  not  really  diverse  in  colour, 
hut  tliat  all  the  terms,  which  have  hitherto  been  regarded  as  denoting  such  diver- 
sity of  colour,  are  to  be  regarded  as  referring  to  all  the  steeds  alike,  and  indicate 
that  they  all  had  the  fiery,  sleek,  and  shining  character  which  might  be  supposed 
to  distinguish  such  steeds.  If  this  were  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  why  should 
the  horses  be  described  instead  of  their  ridei\s?     (See  crit.  comm.) 


Ch.  i.  8-n.]     THE  FIRST  VISION — THE  ANGEL-RIDERS.  1 5 

Steeds.  The  riders  on  the  red  horses  were  to  cause  war  and 
blood,  those  on  the  speckled,  or  pale  grey  steeds,  to  cause 
hunger,  famine,  and  pestilence,  while  the  riders  on  the  white 
horses  were  to  do  their  work  by  conquest  and  subjugation  of 
the  world.  All  such  explanations,  however  ingenious,  are  inad- 
missible, for  the  simple  reason  that  the  translation  "speckled" 
or  "  pale  grey  "  cannot  be  philologically  sustained. 

Kohler  gets  rid  entirely  of  this  special  difficulty  by  adopt- 
ing '^ fire-coloiircd''  or  '■^ fiery  r^^,"  as  the  translation  of  the 
adjective  in  question  (D''p1ti^),  a  translation  which  is  defensible 
(see  crit.  comm.).  According  to  his  scheme,  the  mission  of 
the  riders  on  the  horses  of  this  colour  was  to  devastate  with 
fire,  whilst  those  on  the  red  horses  were  to  bring  war  and 
bloodshed  in  their  train.  He  adopts  Hengstenberg's  explan- 
ation of  the  white  colour  of  the  steeds  as  indicating  the 
victories  which  their  riders  should  obtain  over  the  nations  of 
the  earth.  But  a  difficulty  common  to  both  schemes  of  inter- 
pretation is,  that  all  the  riders  must  be  considered  as  victorious, 
and  as  each  in  their  own  way  succeeding  in  the  work  allotted 
to  them.  There  is  no  real  difference  in  either  scheme  between 
the  mission  of  the  riders  on  the  red,  and  those  on  the  white 
horses  ;  for  war  must  imply  victory  on  one  side  or  the  other, 
and  victory  implies  bloodshed.  Nor  does  either  view  affi^rd 
any  explanation  of  the  fact  that  the  captain  of  the  entire  band 
is  represented  as  himself  riding  on  a  red-coloured  horse. 
If  such  powers  were  delegated  to  the  riders,  why  should  they 
have  reported  that  all  the  world  was  at  rest }  Were  they  to 
wait  until  war,  pestilence,  famine,  or  fire  broke  forth  among 
the  nations,  and  then  to  seek  to  mingle  in  the  fray,  and  in- 
crease the  confusion,  but  otherwise  to  return  without  effecting 
their  mission  }  This  interpretation  is  unsatisfactory,  although 
it  has  been  supported  by  critics  of  eminence. 

Ewald's  opinion,  namely,  that  the  various  colours  of  the 
horses  indicate   the   several   lands   to  be   traversed   by   the 


1 6  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  i.  8. 

several  bands  of  celestial  riders,  is  not  so  easily  refuted  as 
Kcil  seems  to  imagine.  Keil  thinks  that  the  report  of  the 
rider  on  the  red  horse,  made  to  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh,  and 
the  general  statement  made  by  the  united  band,  prove  that 
the  riders  traversed  the  earth  in  a  body.  But  is  not  this 
fact  equally  opposed  to  Keil's  own  interpretation  ;  for  if  the 
judgments  of  the  sword,  famine,  and  conquest  be  referred 
to,  they  must  be  regarded  as  successive,  and  not  as  syn- 
chronous. 

Maurer  was  the  first  to  put  forward  in  a  general  way 
the  view  afterwards  adopted  and  expanded  by  Ewald.  He 
explained  the  colours  of  the  steeds  to  indicate  the  various 
lands  traversed  by  the  riders.  Maurer,  however,  considered 
it  unnecessary  to  inquire  what  lands  respectively  were  signi- 
fied by  the  several  colours.  Hitzig  preserves  on  this  point  a 
judicious  silence.  Ewald  has  exposed  the  whole  interpretation 
to  serious  objection  by  seeking  to  identify  the  riders  in  this 
vision  with  the  four  chariots  mentioned  in  the  seventh  and 
last  vision.  He  would  erase  the  description  given  in  the  text 
of  the  leader  of  the  band,  i.e.y  "  riding  on  a  red  horse,"  which 
statement  he  considers  to  confuse  the  whole  of  the  passage, 
and  would  insert  an  additional  fourth  colour  into  verse  8,  to 
bring  that  passage  into  harmony  with  the  vision  in  chap.  vi. 
The  four  colours  thus  obtained  he  explains  to  signify  the 
four  parts  of  the  heavens,  z'ijs.,  (i)  the  red  to  denote  the  light 
east,  (2)  the  brown  or  chestnut,  or,  as  the  colour  is  in  chap,  vi., 
the  black,  points  to  the  dark  north,  (3)  the  grey  (the  white) 
the  west,  (4)  the  dark-red  striped  (the  new  colour,  translated 
"the  bay  "  in  chap.  vi.  7)  the  south. 

This  assignment  of  the  colours  to  the  various  regions  of  the 
heavens  is  quite  arbitrary.  There  is  nothing  similar  in  the 
whole  range  of  Biblical  literature.  The  connexion  of  the  first 
and  seventh  visions  is  more  than  doubtful,  and  an  interpre- 
tation which  depends  upon    such  an  identification  must  be 


Ch.  i.  8.]       THE   FIRST   VISION — THE   ANGEL- RIDERS.  1/ 

regarded  as  unsafe.  No  fourth  colour  occurs  in  this  vision. 
It  is  introduced  on  pure  critical  conjecture.  If  such  liberties 
may  be  taken  with  the  text,  what  might  not  we  extract 
from  the  visions  ! 

The  same  reasons  which  have  led  us  to  reject  the  inter- 
pretations of  Keil  and  Kohler,  must  lead  to  the  rejection 
of  those  of  Vitringa  and  Rosenmiiller.  According  to  their 
view,  the  three  kinds  of  horses  indicate  respectively  the 
times  of  war,  times  of  varying  distress  and  prosperity,  and 
times  of  complete  prosperity,  which  were  sent  on  the  Jewish 
people.  The  term  "  earth,"  however,  in  this  place  cannot  well 
denote  the  Holy  Land  ;  and  the  celestial  riders  are  repre- 
sented in  the  vision  as  sent  forth  at  one  time,  and  as  bringing 
back  together  a  report  of  their  mission  Nor  does  the  answer 
of  the  horsemen  coincide  with  such  an  explanation. 

The  riders  in  the  vision  did  not  receive  any  commission  to 
interfere  with  terrestrial  matters.  Their  business  was  simply 
to  go  through  the  earth  and  report  upon  its  condition.  They 
were  represented  as  being  many  in  number,  in  order  that  they 
might  traverse  the  earth  in  all  directions ;  and  the  diverse 
colour  of  their  steeds  was  designed  to  mark  them  off  into  three 
distinct  bands.  Kliefoth  considers  that  those  colours  had  a 
relation  to  the  various  lands  and  peoples  visited  by  the  riders 
in  the  discharge  of  their  mission.  This  is  the  weak  point 
in  his  special  interpretation.  But  he  seems  to  us  to  be  cor- 
rect in  considering  that  Zechariah  had  before  his  mind  the 
four  world-empires  of  Daniel.^ 

In  Daniel's  vision  of  the  metallic  image  (Dan.  ii.  31-45), 
the  various  portions  of  that  image  denoting  the  four  empires 

^  It  is  necessary,  according  to  this  view,  to  assume  the  genuineness  of  the  book 
of  Daniel,  and  its  existence  at  the  time  of  Zechariah.  On  this  point  we  must 
refer  to  Dr.  Pusey's  Daniel  the  Prophet,  some  of  whose  criticisms  may  have  been 
replied  to,  but  whose  work  as  a  whole  has  not,  we  conceive,  been  answered.  We 
would  especially  refer  to  his  arguments  against  the  opinion  that  the  fourth  of  DanieFs 
empires  represents  the  rule  of  the  successors  of  Alexander. 

C 


1 8  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS  PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  i.  8. 

were  marked  by  a  difference  jn  colour,  as  it  was  composed 
of  four  distinct  metals.  But  the  colours  ascribed  to  the 
various  parts  of  an  image  composed  of  different  metals 
could  not  with  any  propriety  be  assigned  to  horses.  Regard 
is  paid  even  in  symbols  to  natural  propriety.  But,  inasmuch 
as  all  attempts  have  failed  to  assign  any  natural  symboli- 
cal interpretation  to  the  colours  mentioned  in  Zechariah's 
vision  (which  colours  are  the  colours  common  to  horses),  it 
is  far  more  natural  to  consider  that  the  difference  of  colour 
in  the  case  of  the  steeds  merely  served  the  same  purpose 
for  which  the  difference  of  metals  was  employed  in  Nebu- 
chadnezzar's dream  of  the  Metallic  Image,  related  by  Daniel, 
namely,  to  mark  off  distinctly  one  division  from  another. 
No  colours,  however,  are  spoken  of  in  the  case  of  the  Metallic 
Image. 

The  objection  which  at  first  seems  to  lie  in  the  way  of 
supposing  the  horses  in  Zechariah  to  refer  to  the  empires 
shadowed  forth  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  is,  that  there  are  only 
three  different  divisions  spoken  of  in  Zechariah,  and  not  four, 
as  in  the  book  of  Daniel.  To  this  objection  Kliefoth  gives  a 
very  fitting  answer.  The  first  vision  of  Zechariah  does  not 
depict  the  future,  but  the  past.  It  represents  the  condition  of 
the  Gentile  world  at  that  particular  era.  The  ]3abylonian 
empire  had  been  supplanted  by  the  Medo-Pcrsian,  but  it  had 
not  passed  out  of  existence.  Its  political  power  was  broken, 
but  the  various  portions  of  that  empire  still  existed  as  power- 
ful parts  of  the  Medo-Persian  empire.  The  city  of  Babylon 
was  yet  standing,  though  greatly  diminished  in  importance  ; 
the  name  Babylonian  had  still  a  hold  upon  the  popular  imagi- 
nation. The  Greeks  had  not  yet  shown  any  disposition  to 
assume  the  role  of  a  world-empire,  though  they  were  begin- 
ning to  attract  notice,  and  had  already  come  into  collision 
with  the  Medo-Persian  empire.  Daniel  had,  indeed,  predicted 
the  rise    and    progress    of  the  Greek  power.      There  is  no 


Ch.  i.  8.]  THE   FIRST   VISION — THE   ANGEL-RIDERS.  19 

necessity  to  suppose  that  Zechariah  was  at  this  time  conscious 
of  its  rise,  though  some  years  later  he  might  have  been  well 
aware  of  its  importance  (see  ix.    13).     But  he  had  seen  the 
downfall  in  his  own  day  of  one  world-power,  and  the  rise  of 
another  in   its   stead.     He  probably  knew,  from  the  writings 
of  Daniel,  that  that  power  was  destined  in  its  turn  to  be  over- 
thrown by  a  third.     What  could  be  more  natural  than  that 
he  should  have  often  meditated  on  the  probability  that  the 
power   destined  ultimately  to  overwhelm   the  Medo-Persian 
empire  was  already  growing  up  within  or  without  the  limits      ^     .. 
of  that  empire  ?     Hence  the  triple  instead  of  the  quadruple      • 
division  of  the  lands  of  the  earth  traversed  by  the  angelic  ^  *  ^ 
riders  sent  forth  to  report  as  to  the  state  of    the  Gentile  •JP^'^5*'*' 
world.     This  consciousness  of  the  prophet  seems  to  have  been^-^-.  j;,^^ 
the  substratum  on  which  was  reared  the  vision  that  was  pre-  ^[tzr  Lr^ 
sented  to  his  wondering  imagination  in  the  night  season,   ''*-''^**'  7         . 
Any    attempt,    however,  to   assign  any  grounds    for   the,V*-^<^ 
employment  of  the  special   colours  is  in  our  opinion  futile,  ^^j^tc 
The  red  colour  might,  if  it  stood  alone,  be  explained  as  de-  ^ujvv~».\^ 
noting  bloodshed.      But  it  is   quite  fanciful  to  attempt   to 
account  (as  Kliefoth)  for  the  fact  that  the  leader  of  the  com- 
bined troop  was  represented  as  sitting  on  a  red  horse,  on  the 
grounds,   (i)  that   Babylon  was  not  only  the  first  historical 
manifestation  of  a  world-power  (a  point  which  may  fairly  be 
disputed),  but,  also,  a  fitting  type  of  all  such  empires  ;  and  (2) 
that  the  leader  of  the  combined  troop  was  also  the  leader  of 
the  red  division  sent  forth  to  traverse  the  lands  of  the  Chal- 
daeans,  because  Chaldaea  was  the  first  of  those  great  world- 
empires.     In  his  explanation   of  the  second  colour,  Kliefoth, 
in  order  to  obtain  a  symbolical  signification,  falls  back  on  the 
erroneous  interpretation  of  that  colour  as  "grey"  or  "speckled." 
The   reason,    too,    which  he   assigns  for   "  white "  being    as- 
signed to  the  Grecian  division  is  extremely  fanciful,  namely, 
that  that  power  was  then  as  clean  white  paper,  inasmuch  as 


20  ZECIIARIAIl   AND    HIS   PROrilECIES.  [Cli.  i.  8. 

it  had  not  yet  appeared,  and  it  was  not  clear  what  colour  it 
would  ultimately  assume.  The  difficulties  presented  more  or 
less  by  any  attempt  to  explain  the  colours  figuratively,  rather 
tend  to  show  that  no  symbolical  meaning  whatever  was  in- 
tended.^ 

The  celestial  riders  having  traversed  the  various  lands  of 
the  earth,  which  had  already  passed  under  the  rule  of  the 
first  three  empires  predicted  by  Daniel,  or  were  ultimately 
destined  to  be  subjugated  to  their  sway,  brought  back  their 
report  to  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh.  That  report  was  to  the  effect 
that  all  the  peoples  of  the  earth  were  at  peace.  No  signs 
whatever  appeared  in  any  direction  of  that  "  shaking  of  the 
nations  "  which  had  been  promised  to  the  Jews  by  the  mouth 
of  Haggai.  The  promise  had  been  twice  made  to  Haggai, 
and  by  divine  direction  twice  communicated  to  Zerubbabel, 
the  prince  of  Judah,  that  there  would  be  such  a  "  shaking 
of  the  nations,"  and  that  it  w^ould  result  in  the  overthrow  of 
all  the  kingdoms  and  powers  hostile  to  the  welfare  of  Israel. 
As  a  result  of  such  events,  Haggai  had  predicted  that 
treasures  would  be  brought  by  the  Gentile  nations  into 
the  holy  city,^  and  blessings  would  accrue  to  the  people  of 
Israel.     When,  therefore,  the  celestial  riders  reported  that  no 

'  But  this  is  somewhat  doul)lful.  See  Delitzsch's  Preface  to  Curtiss'  Lei'itical 
Priests,  and  his  articles  on  Farbcn-studien  in  Dahehn  for  1878. 

2  Bishop  Wordsworth,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Minor  Prophets,  has  laboured 
hard  to  defend  the  translation  of  Mag.  ii.  7,  given  in  our  Authorised  Version,  "  The 
desire  of  all  nations  shall  come,"  and  the  consequent  treatment  of  the  passage  as  a 
distinct  prophecy  of  Christ.  This  was  the  view  of  the  Church  Fathei-s,  and  of  the 
earlier  expositors.  But,  independently  of  other  objections,  it  may  safely  be 
asserted  that  the  construction  of  the  plural  verb  cannot  be  explained  on  such  an 
exposition.  The  verb  which  precedes  the  singidar  nominative  cannot  be  ex- 
plained, as  Bishop  Wordsworth  has  suggested,  to  indicate  the  dilTerent  natures  in 
Christ,  or  the  various  offices  which  he  was  to  discharge  for  his  people,  nor  can 
the  Messiah  "  be  justly  regarded  as  a  collective  Being."  Such  suggestions  are  but 
desperate  efforts  to  defend  the  old  exegesis.  Pusey  has,  in  his  note,  passed  over  the 
real  difficulty.  In  the  sentence  D.''fiin"73  JTilpn  -INQ-I  the  nom.  to  the  plural  verb 
is  to  be  regarded  as  a  collective  referring  to  the  gifts  to  be  presented  by  the  na- 
tions. The  prophecy  was  abundantly  fulfilled.  Splendid  gifts  were  presented  by  the 


Ch.  i.  12.]        THE   FIRST   VISION — THE   ANGEL-RIDERS.  21 

signs  as  yet  appeared  of  the  promised  catastrophe,  the  Angel 
of  Jahaveh  poured  forth  his  earnest  intercession  on  behalf 
of  the  people  entrusted  to  his  special  care,  "  O  Jahaveh  (God) 
of  hosts,  how  long  hast  thou  no  pity  for  Jerusalem  and  for 
the  cities  of  Judah,  against  which  thou  hast  been  angry  these 
seventy  years  ?  "  -^ 

Gentiles  to  the  second  temple.  Comp.  Is.  Ix.  The  shaking  of  the  nations  referred 
to  occurred  partially  in  the  prophet's  own  day.  It  had  no  doubt  a  further 
reference  to  the  light  spread  abroad  through  the  Gentile  world  by  the  Jewish 
people,  to  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  the  drawing  of  the  nations  unto  him  who 
was  the  living  temple  in  which  the  glory  of  Jahaveh  was  manifested  in  very  truth. 
Such  prophecies  of  better  things  were  usually  conveyed  in  terms  and  in  figures  suit- 
able to  those  to  whom  they  were  primarily  addressed,  and  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  the  temple  was  the  place  where  God's  glory  was  manifested  in  ancient  days. 
1  We  cannot  in  this  place  enter  into  any  lengthened  discussion  on  the  interesting 
question  whether  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  created  angel, 
empowered  in  an  extraordinary  way  to  speak  as  God's  representative,  or  whether 
he  should  be  more  correctly  viewed  as  an  Old  Testament  manifestation  of  the 
Divine  Logos,  the  Second  Person  in  the  Trinity.  There  are  no  doubt  many 
passages,  as  that  above,  where  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh  expressly  distinguishes  him- 
self from  Jahaveh  ;  and  there  are  passages  where  language  is  used  of  him  which 
it  is  difficult  to  understand  if  used  of  the  Divine  Logos.  It  might  indeed  be  a 
matter  of  dispute  whether  Jude  9  can  be  regarded  among  the  latter,  where  Michael 
the  archangel  is  related  as  not  venturing  {ovk  eToXfiTja-e)  to  bring  a  railing  accusation 
against  Satan.  For  the  identification  of  Michael  with  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  is  a 
matter  of  dispute.  When  Pusey  says  (Daniel  the  Prophet,  3rd  edit.,  p.  520),  that 
the  term  "  Angel  of  the  Lord,"  is  given  "not  as  an  epithet,  but  as  a  description 
of  his  being,"  and  argues  that  "  therefore  it  seems  most  probable  that  he  was  a 
created  angel"  because  the  word  "angel  describes  his  actual  nature,  not  the 
higher  nature  which  spake,  or  was  adored  in  him,"  he  makes  assertions  for  which 
no  evidence  can  be  adduced.  The  Angel  of  the  Lord  is  often  directly  identified 
with  Jahaveh  himself,  as  in  chap.  iii.  2  ;  Gen.  xvi.  7  ff.,  xxxii.  30;  Exod.  iii. 
2,  4,  5,  6,  vi.  14;  Joshua  v.  14,  15,  with  vi.  2  ;  Judg.  xvi.  14.  Compare  also 
Gen.  xviii.  i,  22,  33,  with  xix.  24.  Moreover  Exod.  xxxii.  34,  xxxiv.  9-1 1,  with 
xxxiii.  2,  3,  14,  are  most  important.  It  was,  however,  most  natural  for  the 
ancient  synagogue  to  regard  this  angel  as  a  created  angel,  acting  by  special 
authority  as  God's  representative,  and  treated  therefore  as  God  ;  and  though  we 
incline  to  the  view  that  the  opinion  held  by  the  ancient  Church  Fathers  was 
correct,  i,  e.  that  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  was  the  Divine  Logos,  it  is  impossible  to 
decide  the  question.  If  he  was  not  exactly  the  Logos  itself,  then  the  opinion 
of  Delitzsch  must  be  viewed  as  correct,  namely,  that  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh  was 
a  real  angel,  but  one  which  Jahaveh  by  means  of  his  indwelling  made  his 
organ,  that  is,  Jahaveh  in  real  angelic  form  appeared  sometimes  in  human 
shape,  and  prefigured  thereby  his  future  incarnation.  The  Angel  of  Jahaveh 
was  termed  by  the  Jews  jfiP^P,  or  |f"ipt5''P,  to  be  explained  from  the 
Latin  Dictator,  not  =fJi.eTddpoyos  (Renan),    or   as   the  Greek  fierarvpavvos  (Levy), 


22  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  i.  12. 

The  "  seventy  years  "  of  Jeremiah  here  spoken  of  (see  crit. 
comm.)  must  be  counted  from  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of 
Jehoiakim,  if  we  recognise  the  authority  of  the  books  of 
Daniel,  2  Chronicles,  and  Ezra,  Daniel  himself  regarded  that 
period  as  near  its  close,  in  B.C.  538  (Dan.  ix.  2),  and  the  other 
books  distinctly  say  that  those  seventy  years  expired  in  the 
first  year  of  Cyrus,  king  of  Persia,  that  is,  in  li.C.  536.  The 
question,  of  course,  hinges  on  the  correctness  of  the  state- 
ment (Dan.  i.  i,  2)  that  Nebuchadnezzar  took  Jerusalem  in 
the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim,  and  carried  away  a  number  of 
Jewish  captives  on  that  occasion  to  Babylon.  As  the  third 
year  of  Jehoiakim  was  B.C.  607  or  606,  and  as  Pharaoh  Necho 
was  not  finally  routed  by  the  Chalda^ans  till  the  battle  of 
Carchemish,  at  the  fords  of  the  Euphrates,  in  B.C.  605  or  604, 
the  capture  of  Jerusalem  referred  to  must  have  taken  place 
before  the  power  of  Egypt  was  decisively  broken.  There 
is,  however,  little  difficulty  in  maintaining  with  Kohler,  that 
Jerusalem  was  captured  also  in  B.C.  606.  Pharaoh  Necho, 
notwithstanding  his  victory  over  Josiah  at  Megiddo,  and 
his  subsequent  reduction  of  Jerusalem,  seems  himself  to 
have  been  obliged  to  retreat  before  Nebuchadnezzar,  who 
acted  at  that  time  as  commander-in-chief  of  his  father's 
army.  Advancing  southwards,  Nebuchadnezzar  made  him- 
self master  of  Jerusalem,  and  forced  its  king  to  become 
a  vassal  of  Babylon.  Pharaoh  Necho,  however,  at  a  later 
date,  compelled  the  army  of  the  Chaldaeans,  probably 
in  the  absence  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  to  retire  to  Carchemish, 
where   the   Chaldaeans,  under   the   command   of  Nebuchad- 


which  at  least  was  not  a  common  word.  It  has  been  noted  that  the  numerical 
value  of  the  first  form  is  equal  to  Hti'  (Shaddai)  tlie  Almighty.  The  ablest  de- 
fence of  the  view  that  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh  is  the  Logos,  is  to  be  found  in 
McCaul's  valuable  dissertation  at  the  end  of  his  translation  of  chapter  i.  of 
KimchCs  Commettt.  on  Zechariah  ;  and  amongst  the  numerous  articles  by  Ger- 
man scholars,  the  most  satisfactory  perhaps  is  that  by  Delitzsch,  in  his  Commentar 
iiber  die  Genesis,  4te  Ausg.,  pp.  284-290. 


Ch.  i.  12,  13.]      THE   FIRST   VISION — THE   ANGEL-RIDERS.  23 

nezzar  (who  ascended  the  throne  on  his  father's  death  in 
B.C.  605)  finally  gained  a  decisive  victory.  As  Jehoiakim 
reigned  eleven  years  in  Jerusalem,  Nebuchadnezzar  may, 
as  an  act  of  grace  for  some  reasons  unknown  to  us,  have 
permitted  him  to  remain  on  the  throne  of  Judah  as  a  tributary 
vassal.  Thus  commenced  the  seventy  years'  captivity.  If 
this  be  correct,  Nebuchadnezzar  took  Jerusalem  no  less  than 
three  times,  and  carried  off  a  number  of  captives  to  Babylon 
on  the  first  two  occasions  as  well  as  on  the  last.  The  first 
capture  is  spoken  of  in  Dan.  i.  i,  2  ;  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  5-7  ; 
2  Kings  xxiv.  i  ;  the  second  in  2  Kings  xxiv.  10-15  ;  the 
third  and  final  capture  in  2  Kings  xxv.,  Jer.  xxxix.,  etc. 

It  is,  however,  also  worthy  of  note,  that  a  period  of  about 
seventy  years  intervened  from  the  date  of  the  final  capture 
and  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  in  B.C.  588,  to  the  second  year 
of  Darius  Hystaspis,  when  Zechariah  saw  his  visions.  This 
has  been  regarded  by  some  as  a  secondary  fulfilment  of  the 
prophecy.  It  must,  however,  be  remembered,  that  the  edict 
of  Cyrus  gave  permission  to  the  Jews  to  rebuild  their  city  as 
well  as  their  temple  ;  and  if  the  "  seventy  years  "  are  not  to 
be  considered  at  an  end  because  the  restoration  of  the  city 
was  not  yet  complete,  the  work  of  restoration  cannot  be 
considered  as  really  accomplished  until  after  the  date  of 
Nehemiah's  visit  to  Jerusalem  in  B.C.  445,  and  not  even  then. 

The  intercession  of  the  angel  was  not  merely  a  prayer  that 
Jerusalem  and  the  cities  of  Judah  might  enjoy  the  same  quiet 
which  the  cities  of  the  nations  enjoyed  at  the  same  period — 
it  implied  that  no  change  could  be  expected  to  occur  in  the 
position  of  the  Jewish  people  until  the  quiet  of  the  nations 
was  broken.  The  answer  vouchsafed  by  Jahaveh  to  the 
prayer  of  the  angel  is  narrated  as  if  it  had  been  addressed  to 
the  interpreting  angel.  It  may  be  supposed  that  the  reply  of 
Jahaveh  was  communicated  at  once  to  the  interpreting  angel, 
as  the  intercessory  prayer  of  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh  had  been 


24  ZECIIARIAir   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.      [Ch.  i.  12-17. 

offered  up  in  order  that  the  prophet  might  hear  the  answer  of 
peace  and  comfort  given  by  the  Lord.  Or  the  reply  might 
have  been  communicated  in  the  first  place  to  the  Angel  of 
Jahaveh,  and  then  through  his  instrumentality  to  the  inter- 
preting angel.  Such  subordinate  details  are  not  always 
minutely  narrated.  To  identify,  however,  on  the  authority  of 
this  passage,  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh  with  the  interpreting 
angel,  would  introduce  very  considerable  confusion  into  this 
and  the  other  visions. 

The  reason  why  the  answer  of  Jahaveh  to  the  intercession 
of  the  angel  was  thus,  directly  or  indirectly,  communicated 
to  the  prophet,  and  why  he  was  not  left  as  on  other  occasions 
to  learn  the  answer  by  his  own  observation  (as  he  had 
already  heard  the  report  of  the  angelic  riders  on  the  state  of 
the  Gentile  world),  seems  to  have  been  that  in  consequence 
of  that  reply  the  prophet  himself  was  to  be  entrusted  with  a 
special  mission.  The  gracious  answer  of  Jahaveh  was  not  to 
be  locked  in  the  deep  recesses  of  the  prophet's  heart,  to  be 
pondered  over  there  by  himself,  but  was  forthwith  to  be  pub- 
lished to  the  people.  Zechariah  was  not  merely  to  be  a  hearer 
of  good  tidings,  but  a  preacher  of  the  same. 

The  purport  of  the  proclamation  which  was  to  be  made  in 
the  cities  of  Judah  was,  that  God's  love  to  his  people  was  not 
to  be  measured  by  the  outward  circumstances  in  which  they 
found  themselves  placed.  The  Divine  anger  would  soon  be 
manifested  towards  the  nations  which  were  apparently  at  ease.^ 

^  Dr.  Talbot  Chambers,  in  the  English  edition  of  Lauge's  Connnciitary,  has  a 
note  on  chap.  i.  11,  which  inadvertently  accuses  Bishop  Wordsworth  of  an  error 
into  which  he  has  not  fallen.  The  Bishop  notes  that  the  riders  report  to  the  angel 
"  that  the  heathen  nations  are  at  ease,  i.e.,  secure,  proud,  and  licentious,  as  if 
there  was  no  God  in  heaven,"  and  he  refers  in  the  same  place  to  "  the  use  of  the 
word  shaandn,  rendered  at  ease  in  Isa.  xxxii.  9,  11,  'Tremble  ye  women  that  are 
at  ease,'  and  in  Amos  vi.  i,  '  Woe  to  them  that  are  at  ease,'  while  his  own  people 
are  in  distress."  Chambers  notes  on  this  observation  of  Bishop  Wordsworth, 
"  This  is  a  strange  mistake,  for  it  is  another  word,  nP|X',  which  rarely,  if  ever, 
has  any  moral  significance,  and  means  merely  quiet."  13ut  Chambers  has  forgotten 
that  the  word  on  which  the  Bishop  comments  is  used  in  verse  14,   in  evident 


Ch.  i.  12-17.]    THE   FIRST   VISION — THE   ANGEL-RIDERS.  2$ 

Towards  his  own  people,  though  harassed  by  the  hostihty  of 
their  foes  and  distressed  by  the  ruinous  condition  of  their 
cities,  God's  thoughts  were  still  thoughts  of  love.  God  had 
been  indeed  "  for  a  little  while  "  angry  with  them  because  of 
their  sin.^  He  had  made  use  of  the  nations  in  the  day  of  his 
anger  as  a  rod  with  which  to  chasten  Israel.  But  the 
nations,  who  were  only  instruments  in  the  Lord's  hands,  had 
fancied  that  the  success  vouchsafed  them  was  occasioned  by 
their  own  wisdom  and  might ;  and  they  had  continued  to 
oppress  the  people  of  Jahaveh  beyond  the  "  seventy  years  " 
during  which  the  Lord  had  sold  Israel  into  the  hands  of  their 
adversaries.  The  sin  of  the  Gentiles  consisted  in  their  de- 
siring to  oppress  the  people  of  the  covenant  beyond  this 
period  (see  crit.  comm.).  Hence  Jahaveh  was  sore  displeased 
at  those  nations.  Their  efforts  to  hinder  the  restoration  of 
the  Lord's  people  would  be  ultimately  in  vain.  Jahaveh  had 
indeed  returned  to  Jerusalem  with  mercies.  The  city  should 
be  built  even  in  troublous  days.  The  line,  which  had  been 
stretched  over  it  for  the  purpose  of  destruction,  would  yet  be 
stretched  over  it  for  the  purpose  of  its  being  built  again.  The 
cities  of  Israel  would  yet  overflow  (see  crit.  comm.)  with 
prosperity.  Jahaveh  would  yet  comfort  Zion,  and  again 
choose  Jerusalem. 

The  promises  here  given  were  fulfilled  by  the  completion 
of  the  temple,  the  restoration  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  the 

allusion  to  this  very  report  of  the  angelic  riders,  and  that  it  is  that  passage  which 
the  Bishop  has  in  view,  on  which  passage  Chambers,  indeed,  makes  a  remark  very 
similar  to  that  of  Bishop  Wordsworth. 

'  L2yp  when  used  adverbially,  as  here  (i.  15},  is  generally  an  adverb  of  time, 
"I  was  for  a  little  time  wrath,"  and  the  reference  in  this  place  is  evidently  to  the 
seventy  years  during  which  the  Jewish  people  were  given  into  the  hands  of  the 
Gentiles.  Compare  for  the  sense,  Isa.  liv.  8.  When  used  adverbially  in  the 
signification  of  a  little,  the  word  is  generally  construed  with  ]'0,  as  in  Ps.  viii.  6  ; 
2  Sam.  xvi.  i  ;  Ezek.  xvi.  20,  etc.  Hence  we  cannot  accept  Pusey's  expla- 
nation, that  the  passage  means  "  little  in  comparison  with  our  deserts,  little  in 
comparison  with  the  anger  of  the  human  instraments  of  his  displeasure,  little  in 
comparison  with  theirs  who  in  their  anger  sought  their  own  ends." 


26  ZECHARIAII   AND    IIIS   PROPHECIES.     [Ch.  i.  i8,  19  (ii.  i,  2). 

large  increase  of  its  population,  and  the  blessings  of  Divine 
protection  vouchsafed  amidst  those  troublous  days.  The 
idea  of  von  Hofmann  that  the  prophecy  properly  refers  to 
days  yet  future,  is  opposed  to  the  whole  drift  of  the  vision. 
The  prophecy  contains,  however,  assurances  of  blessings  which 
have  been  vouchsafed  in  all  ages  to  the  Israel  of  God,  and 
which  may  yet  be  poured  out  in  greater  measure.  But  its  real 
reference  is  to  the  days  which  immediately  follow  the  time 
of  Zechariah. 

The  first  vision  revealed  to  the  prophet  that  it  was  the 
Divine  purpose  to  break  up  the  quiet  of  the  Gentile  world, 
and  to  restore  mercies  to  the  Jewish  land  and  people.  The 
second  vision  illustrates  this  truth  by  showing  how  God  had, 
in  past  days,  wrought  for  Israel's  deliverance,  and  how  in  the 
future  he  would  scatter  their  foes.  A  new  scene  presented 
itself  to  the  prophet's  view  as  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  which  may 
,  have  been  cast  down  as  he  meditated  on  what  he  had  already 
seen  and  heard,  or  which  may  have  been  turned  away  from 
the  scene  he  had  been  beholding  towards  the  interpreting 
angel,  as  the  latter  expounded  unto  him  the  answer  of 
Jahaveh.  The  prophet  now  beheld  four  horns,  probably  be- 
longing to  some  animals  indistinctly  perceived,  the  significant 
horns  being  all  that  was  clearly  seen,  or  at  least  that  is  de- 
.scribed.  The  "  four  horns  "  must  not  be  considered,  with  J.  D. 
Michael  is,  to  belong  to  two  oxen,  still  less  are  they  to  be 
regarded  as  the  horns  of  "  unicorns,"  an  animal  nowhere 
mentioned  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.^  The  four  horns  of 
Zechariah  must  be  regarded  as  belonging  to  four  separate  wild 
animals,  for  they  cannot  well  be  regarded  as  horns  of  iron,  as 
Naegelsbach  imagines  {Couini.  on  Klagelicdcr,  iii.  53  ;  Lange's 
Bibclwcrk). 

'  This  is  a  fact  too  often  forgotten  by  popular  expositors  and  pamphleteers, 
owing  to  the  mistranslalion  in  our  A.  V.,  wliich  has  come  from  the  LXX.  See 
almost  any  good  Biblical  Dictionary,  especially  the  particle  in  Smith's  Dictionary 
of  the  Bible. 


Ch.  i.iS,  I9(ii.  1.2).]  THE  SECOND  VISION — THE  FOUR  HORNS.    2/ 

To  the  question  of  the  prophet, "  What  are  these  .'' "  the 
interpreting  angel  repHed  that  "these  are  the  horns  which 
scattered  Judah,  Israel,  and  Jerusalem."  ^ 

The  horn  is  no  doubt  used  as  a  symbol  of  power  (Amos 
vi.  13),  and  the  horns  must,  therefore,  signify  some  powers, 
kingdoms  or  nations  hostile  to  the  people  of  Israel.  Taking 
into  consideration  the  connection  of  this  vision  with  the  pre- 
ceding, and  that  the  object  of  the  visions  was  to  encourage 
the  exiles  who  had  returned  from  captivity,  the  vision  appears 
mainly  to  refer  to  the  past  and  not  to  the  future  ;  and  as  Israel 
is  specially  mentioned,  the  power  which  had  brought  about 
the  dispersion  of  the  kingdom  of  the  northern  tribes  would 
naturally  be  expected  to  rank  as  one  of  the  horns.  Hence 
the  ancient  opinion  held  by  Jerome  (as  well  as  by  Kimchi 
and  Abarbanel  among  the  Jewish  expositors,  and  among 
later  critics  by  Hengstenberg,  Kliefoth,  and  Keil)  can  scarcely 
be  correct,  namely,  that  the  four  world-empires  of  Daniel  are 
meant.  Moreover,  the  "  smiths,"  who  are  afterwards  spoken 
of  as  putting  an  end  to  the  destructive  power  of  the  several 
horns,  appear  to  indicate  human  instrumentality  ;  while  the 
fourth  kingdom  of  Daniel  is  represented  as  coming  to  its  end 
in  a  totally  different  manner.  The  number  four  may  indeed 
be  derived  from  the  four  kingdoms  of  Daniel ;  but  the  four 
horns  seem  to  refer  to  four  other  powers  not  absolutely  iden- 
tical with  those  of  Daniel. 

The  number  four  is  evidently  significant.  It  might  refer 
to  the  four  quarters  of  the  heavens,  as  Ewald,  Hitzig,  and 
others  consider.  In  that  case  the  four  horns  would  represent 
the  enemies  of  Israel  on  every  side  (comp.  Ezek.  xii.  14, 
xvii.  21  ;  Isa.  xi.  12)  :  "  Edom  and  Egypt  in  the  south,  the 
Philistines  in  the  west,  the  Ammonites  and  Moabites  in  the 

^  The  perfect  tenses  used  in  the  original  (here  and  in  verse  4),  however,  cannot 
be  regarded  in  themselves  as  decisive  of  the  question  as  to  whether  the  vision  is  to 
be  regarded  as  referring  to  the  past  or  the  future. 


28  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS   TROPHECIES.    [Ch.  i.  iS,  19  (ii.  i,  2). 

east,  and  from  the  north  the  Syrians,  Assyrians,  and  espe- 
cially the  Chaldaeans "  (Hitzig).  The  allusion  to  the  four 
winds  of  heaven,  in  verse  10,  may  be  urged,  as  Keil  has  noted, 
in  support  of  this  opinion.  The  word  scattered  or  dispersed, 
properly  means  to  winnow,  to  separate  and  scatter  by  means 
of  the  wind,^  and  it  is  often  used  when  special  mention  is 
made  of  the  winds  themselves.  But  the  great  objection  to 
this  view  is  that  by  far  the  greater  number  of  the  enemies 
named  by  Hitzig  had  no  real  hand  in  the  dispersion  of  Israel 
and  Judah. 

We  are,  therefore,  inclined  to  coincide  with  Pressel's  inter- 
pretation of  this  vision,  namely,  that  the  four  horns  represent 
the  four  distinct  powers  which  dispersed  and  scattered  the 
Israelites,  both  of  the  northern  and  southern  kingdoms,  even 
as  straw  is  dispersed  by  the  wind.  The  vision  had  a  distinct 
reference  to  the  times  of  the  prophet,  and  to  the  powers 
which  produced  that  dispersion  from  which  the  Jews  were 
beginning  to  recover.  The  first  kingdom  which  lifted  up  its 
horn  to  scatter  both  Israel  and  Judah,  and  which  effected  the 
dispersion  of  the  former,  was  Assyria  ;  Egypt  soon  joined  in 
the  fray,  then  Babylon,  and,  last  of  all,  the  Medo-Persian 
empire,  which,  though  friendly  at  the  outset,  had  no  little 
share  in  the  work  of  dispersion,  and  in  keeping  Israel  and 
Judah  in  a  scattered  condition. 

The  combination  at  the  end  of  verse  2,  "  Judah,  Israel 
and  Jerusalem,"  is  peculiar.  It  is  most  easily  explained  by 
considering,  with  Ewald,^  that  Judah  is  named  before  Israel 
as  occupying  the  higher  place  of  honour,  just  as  Benjamin  is 
named  before  Judah  in  Ps.  Ixviii.  27,  for  a  similar  reason  ; 
because  the  capital  city  of  the  twelve  tribes  lay  within  its  ter- 
ritorial limits, — and  also,  as  Dclitzsch  notes  in  his  commentary 

'  See  '?r\\  in  Jer.  xv.  7  ;  Isa.  xli.  16  ;  Ezck.  v.  2,  10,  etc. 

-  See  his  Prophctcn  dcs  A.  B.,  vol.  iii.  p.  194,  and  his  DichUr  dcs  Alten 
BunJds,  p.  424. 


Ch.  i.  i8,  I9(ii.  i,  2).]  THE  SECOND  VISION — THE  FOUR  HORNS.    29 

on  that  Psalm,  because  the  first  king  of  Israel  had  sprung 
from  Benjamin.  As  to  the  fact  that  the  particle  Di^  so  com- 
monly affixed  to  a  definite  noun  when  in  the  accusative 
(especially  when  that  definite  noun  happens  to  be  the  proper 
name  of  a  person),  is  here  used  before  Judah  and  Israel,  while 
it  is  omitted  before  Jerusalem,  the  latter  word  being  united  to 
Israel  by  the  copula, — we  note  that  the  construction  shows 
that  "  Judah  and  Jerusalem  "  cannot  be  regarded  as  opposed 
to  or  contrasted  with  one  another,  but  as  forming  co-ordinate 
parts  of  one  great  whole.  "  Jerusalem  "  is  specially  mentioned 
and  mentioned  last,  as  the  great  city  in  which  both  divisions 
of  the  covenant  people  had  alike  a  share,  and  in  whose  welfare 
they  were  both  deeply  concerned.  The  schism  which  took 
place  in  the  days  of  Rehoboam  was  justified  as  long  as  it  was 
only  political  ;  it  became  sinful  when  it  afifected  Jerusalem  as 
the  religious  centre  of  the  covenant  people.  The  reason  why 
the  particle  is  omitted  here  before  "  Jerusalem  "  may  be  that 
"  Judah  and  Israel "  are  used  in  our  text  as  the  proper  names 
of  large  bodies  of  people,  while  "  Jerusalem  "  has  not  that 
particle,  because  it  indicates  in  this  place  not  the  inJiabitants, 
but  the  city  itself,  whose  stones  had  indeed  been  scattered,  but 
whose  very  stones  and  dust  were  to  be  regarded  as  things  in 
which  all  the  members  of  the  covenant  alike  should  take  interest 
(Ps.  cii.  15,  E.  V.  ver.  14).^  The  Masoretic  accentuation  is  not 
opposed  to  this  interpretation.  For  these  reasons,  we  adhere 
to  the  view  advocated  by  Maurer,  Umbreit  and  Kohler, 
namely,  that  "  Israel "  in  this  passage  denotes  the  northern 
tribes,  while  "Judah  "  is  used  as  the  name  of  the  tribes  which 
used  to  occupy  the  south  of  the  land. 

Hitzig  considers  the  term  "Judah  "  to  be  used  for  the  people 
as  a  whole,  the  component  parts  of  which  were  "  Israel," 
meaning  thereby  the  people  of  the  country,  and  "  Jerusalem," 

^  On  the  use  of  the  HS,  and  the  finer  shades  of  meaning  connected  therewith, 
see  Ewald's  .<4«5/:  Lehrb.,  §  277  d.  2. 


30  ZECHARIAH  AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.    [Ch.  i.  iS,  i9(ii.  i,  2). 

the  inhabitants  of  the  capital.  Hengstenberg  and  Keil,  on 
the  contrary,  maintain  that  the  co-ordination  of  "  Judah  and 
Israel  "  in  this  place  without  any  copula  between  them,  while 
"  Israel  and  Jerusalem "  are  so  connected,  is  a  proof  that 
"  Israel  and  Jerusalem  "  in  the  second  sentence  are  identical 
with  "Judah"  in  the  first.  This  opinion  is  supported  by  a 
reference  to  verse  4,  where  the  scattering  of  Judah  is  alone 
mentioned,  as  if  the  scattering  of  Judah  in  that  verse  was  an 
expression  equivalent  to  the  scattering  of  "  Judah,  Israel,  and 
Jerusalem  "  in  verse  2.  The  argument,  however,  is  not  con- 
clusive, as  the  scattering  of  Judah,  in  verse  4,  seems  to  have 
been  specially  mentioned  as  that  in  which  the  body  of  exiles 
who  first  returned  to  their  land  were  most  particularly  con- 
cerned.^ It  is  perfectly  true,  however,  that  the  term  "  Israel " 
is  not  always  to  be  understood  as  signifying  the  people  of 
the  so-called  ten  tribes,  as  distinct  from  "Judah  ; "  nor  is  that 
name  only  used  when  the  posterity  of  Jacob  is  alluded  to, 
without  special  reference  being  made  to  the  tribes  of  which 
they  were  composed.  The  name  Israel  is  not  unfrequently 
used  as  a  special  designation  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  and  those 
connected  with  it.  See  2  Chron.  xii.  I,  xv.  17,  xix.  8,  xxi. 
2,  4  [xxiii.  2  (.'')],  xxiv.,  etc. 

Kliefoth,  who  interprets  the  four  horns  as  identical  with 
Daniel's  world-empires,  considers  that  the  expression,  "Judah, 
Israel,  and  Jerusalem,"  is  used  with  a  special  reference  to  the 
days  then  future,  when  those  four  powers  should  have  per- 
formed their  work  of  scattering  the  people  of  Israel.  He 
regards  "Judah  "  on  the  one  hand,  and  "  Israel  and  Jerusalem  " 

'  The  view  of  Pressel  does  not  difTer  much  from  that  of  Hengstenberg  and  Keil. 
Judah  and  Israel  are,  he  thinks,  rightly  divided  off  from  one  another  by  the  Maso- 
retic  accentuation,  partly  because  Judah  was  considered  by  the  prophet  to  re- 
present the  whole  people, — inasmuch  as  he  regarded  it  as  the  theocratic  state,  and 
its  people  as  the  people  of  God  ;  and  partly  because  Judah  alone  had  returned 
from  captivity,  and  its  temple-colony  was  to  be  the  foundation  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom.  The  people  of  Judah  were  therefore  entitled  to  be  called  "Israel," 
while  the  chief  city  of  the  nation  was  Jerusalem. 


Ch.i.iS-2i{ii.i-4).]  THE  SECOND  VISION — THE  FOUR  SMITHS.    3  I 

on  the  other,  as  indicating  the  divided  parts  of  that  which 
united  should  have  formed  the  whole  people  of  God.  Taking 
this  passage  in  connection  with  the  passages  in  chap.  xi.  14, 
xii.  I,  etc.,  Kliefoth  thinks  that  reference  is  made  to  a  schism 
which  was  to  take  place  between  these  two  portions,  destined 
to  prove  far  more  grievous  than  the  great  schism  which  had 
occurred  in  the  time  of  Rehoboam.  The  passage,  in  his 
vievy,  as  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  later  chapters,  con- 
tains a  prophecy  that  at  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  a  small 
portion  only  of  "  Israel  after  the  flesh  "  would  submit  them- 
selves to  his  rule;  which  believing  portion,  with  a  mass 
drawn  out  of  the  Gentile  world,  would  then  constitute  the 
"  Israel  of  God,"  and  is  designated  here  by  the  honourable 
name  of  "  Judah."  The  other  portion,  comprising  the  bulk 
of  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  would  continue  in  their  un- 
belief and  hardness  of  heart  until  the  time  of  the  end. 

All  this  is  a  large  superstructure  raised  upon  very  slender 
foundation.  If  it  were  true,  it  would  be  difficult  to  account 
for  the  phenomenon  that  in  the  New  Testament  believers 
are  nowhere  called  by  the  name  of  "  Judah,"  though  they  are 
sometimes  styled  by  the  name  of  "  Israel." 

It  would  be  vain  to  attempt  here  to  give  a  fair  conspectus 
of  the  various  opinions  propounded  regarding  the  "  four  car- 
penters," or  "  smiths,"  represented  as  frightening  "  the  horns," 
and  casting  them  down  or  away.i  They  cannot  denote 
angelic  agency  (an  opinion  alluded  to  with  favour  by  Pusey), 

^  Such  as  that  they  were  Zerubbabel,  Joshua,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah  {Lightfoot), 
who  overturned  the  four  adversaries  mentioned  (Ezra  iv.  8,  and  v.  3)  ;  or  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, Cyrus,  Themistocles,  and  Cimon,  who  conquered  Shalmanezar, 
Nebuchadnezzar,  Xerxes,  and  Artaxerxes  {Cocceius)  ;  or  that  they  indicate  gene- 
rally the  angels.  Hitzig  and  Ewald  do  not  give  any  definite  explanation.  Others 
think  that  reference  is  made  to  instrumentalities  raised  up  on  all  sides.  Such 
interpretations  as  that  of  Bosanquet  scarcely  need  mention.  "There  is  a  covert 
mention  here,"  says  that  writer,  "  in  this  revelation  to  the  Jews,  of  the  four  evan- 
gelists, who  are  to  cast  out  heathenism,  and  to  establish  Christ's  Church  ;  perhaps 
even  to  the  four  cherubim,  who  are  God's  chariot,  bearing  him  up  and  onward  iu 
his  march  with  his  army  of  preachers  to  this  conquest  "  !  ! 


32  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.    [Ch.  i.  1S-21  (ii.  1-4). 

but  must  refer  to  some  human  agency,  and  must  mean  some- 
thing more  than  the  means  in  general  whereby  God's  pro- 
vidence overthrows  the  enemies  of  his  people  (Kohler).  If  the 
number  y^«r  is  deserving  of  note  in  the  case  of  the  four  horns, 
it  ought  to  be  considered  significant  with  respect  to  the  car- 
penters. The  allusions  which  Pusey  makes  to  the  apostle 
Paul  being  styled  a  wise  builder  (i  Cor.  iii.  10),  to  the  Lord's 
taking  away  from  Jerusalem  the  cunning  artificer  {Isa.  iii.  3, 
which  is  the  same  word  rendered  carpenter  in  the  A.  V.  of 
Zech.  i.  20),  and  to  our  Lord  as  "  the  son  of  a  carpenter " 
(Matt.  xiii.  55),  are  simply  out  of  place. 

There  is  no  ground  on  which  (with  J.  D.  Michaelis)  to 
propose  a  change  of  the  vocalization,  so  as  to  make  the  word 
signify  ploughmen  or  plowers,  as  in  our  A.  V.  of  Ps.  cxxix.  3 
(see  crit.  comm.).  Nor  is  the  translation  "  carpenters,"  which  has 
been  borrowed  from  the  LXX.  the  most  correct.  It  is  better 
to  follow  the  rendering  given  by  Ewald,  Hitzig,  and  most  of 
the  modern  critics,  and  understand  '' smiths."  Pressel  has 
noted  that  a  farmer  suggested  to  him  the  true  reason  why 
smiths  are  specially  alluded  to.  "  When  cattle,  said  the  farmer, 
are  driven  out  to  the  pasture,  the  points  of  the  oxen's  horns  are 
often  cut  off,  in  order  that  they  may  be  no  longer  dangerous, 
and  as  one  is  obliged  for  this  purpose  to  use  a  particularly 
sharp  instrument,  he  has  generally  recourse  to  a  smith."  It 
must  be  noted  that  in  the  vision  the  "  smiths  "  are  said  to 
terrify,  and  to  cast  away  the  horns,  i.e.,  to  terrify  the  animals 
to  whom  the  horns  severally  belonged,  and  to  destroy  and 
cast  away,  or  throw  down  to  the  ground,  their  horns,  as  that 
in  which  their  chief  power  lay.  If  we  are  right  in  identifying, 
with  Pressel,  "  the  four  horns  "  with  the  empires  of  Assyria, 
Egypt,  Babylon,  and  Medo-Persia,  which  empires  in  or  before 
the  prophet's  time  had  scattered  the  holy  people,  we  cannot 
be  far  astray  in  identifying  "  the  four  smiths,"  who  in  this 
vision   terrified  the  wild   animals   to  whom   those   horns  be- 


Ch.ii.  1,2  (ii.  5,6).]  THIRD  VISION — THE  MAN  WITH  THE  LINE.  33 

longed,  by  making  the  animals  fast,  and  then  cutting  off  the 
points  of  their  horns,  with  Nebuchadnezzar  who  shattered 
the  power  of  Assyria,  Cyrus  who  broke  down  the  pride  of 
Babylon,  Cambyses  who  finally  subdued  Egypt,  which  had 
been  but  humbled  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  Alexander  the 
Great  who  in  his  turn  levelled  the  might  of  Persia  in  the  dust_ 
The  prophet  Haggai  had  predicted  that  the  nations  who  had 
oppressed  Israel  should  fall  by  the  hands  of  one  another 
(Hag.  ii.  22) ;  but  Zechariah  represents  here  the  horns  of  the 
oppressing  nations  as  broken  off,  not  so  much  by  those  nations 
which  succeeded  in  their  turn  to  empire,  as  by  the  individual 
prowess  of  those  mighty  conquerors,  who  in  these  conquests, 
whether  wittingly  or  not,  acted  as  "  servants "  of  the  Most 
High.  Two  of  these  conquerors  at  least,  Cyrus  and  Alexander, 
were  peculiarly  disposed  to  favour  the  Jewish  nation. 

The  first  vision  had  proved  that,  amid  the  apparent  quiet 
of  the  nations,  Jahaveh  was  still  cherishing  love  towards 
Israel,  and  designing  wrath  against  their  oppressors.  The 
second  vision  pointed  out  how  the  might  and  power  of  the 
Gentile  nations  had  been  broken,  though  in  Daniel's  phrase- 
ology the  lives  of  those  beasts  had  been  preserved  for  a  season 
(Dan.  vii.  12).  The  third  vision  exhibits  a  further  stage  in 
the  development  of  the  blessings  intended  for  the  people  of 
God. 

The  prophet  beheld  in  this  new  vision  a  man  with  a 
measuring  line  in  his  hand.  The  prophet  forthwith  interro- 
gated the  man,  and  asked  whither  he  was  going  ?  The  man  re- 
plied that  he  was  going  forth  "  to  measure  Jerusalem,  in  order 
to  see  how  great  should  be  its  breadth,  and  how  great  should 
be  its  length."  This  is  Hitzig's  translation.  The  words  how- 
ever are  ambiguous  in  themselves,  and  need  not  necessarily 
be  so  translated.  They  might  refer  to  the  actual  condition  of 
Jerusalem,  either  viewed  as  it  then  was,  or  regarded  as  fully 
restored  and  repeopled.     This  latter  is  the  view  of  Kliefoth, 

D 


34  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.    [Ch.  ii.  3,  4  (ii.  7,  8). 

who  considers  that  the  object  of  the  man  was  not  to  rebuild 
Jerusalem,  nor  even  to  devise  plans  for  its  being  rebuilt,  but 
simply  to  ascertain  its  size,  as  seen  in  Messianic  times. 
The  words  of  the  angel  in  ver.  4  seem  to  us  opposed  to  this 
idea.  For  the  man  with  the  measuring  line  could  do  harm  by 
taking  the  measurements,  unless  those  measurements  tended 
in  some  way  or  other  to  restrict  and  confine  the  city  within 
too  narrow  bounds. 

As  the  man  was  busying  himself  about  his  self-imposed 
task,  the  interpreting  angel  seemed  to  leave  the  prophet's  side,^ 
while  another  angel  went  forth  to  meet  him,  as  if  to  receive 
his  commands,  as  those  of  one  in  authority,  for  a  certain 
subordination  seems  to  exist  amid  the  ranks  of  the  angels. 
The  interpreting  angel,  who,  in  order  to  instruct  the  prophet, 
had  received  a  deeper  insight  into  the  Divine  counsels  as  re- 
garded the  future,  directs  his  fellow  angel  forthwith  to  "  Run, 
speak  to  this  young  man,  saying,  Jerusalem  will  remain  as 
villages  (or  cities  of  the  flat  and  open  country),  on  account  of 
the  multitude  of  men  and  cattle, in  her  midst."- 

The  man  with  the  measuring  line  is  not  to  be  regarded  as 
an  angel.  He  was  sent  forth  on  no  mission  from  above.  He 
appears  as  a  mere  figure  in  the  vision,  and  one  represented  as 
acting  unwisely.  He  may  have  been,  as  Neumann  imagines, 
termed  "  this  young  man  "  by  the  angel,  in  allusion  to  his 
simplicity ;    we    are   not,    however,    disposed   to   press   that 

'  Lit.  "goes  forth  "  (XV^).  Comp.  Micah  i.  3,  IDIpDtD  XV'  mn*  H^H  O- 
2  Vencma's  view  is  that  the  interpreting  angel  went  forth,  following  at  some 
interval  the  measuring  angel,  in  order  to  observe  the  result  of  his  work,  but  that 
ere  he  came  up  with  him,  the  other  was  already  returning,  having  accomplished 
his  task.  The  angel  who  had  measured  the  city  then  directed  the  interpreting 
angel  to  return  to  the  prophet,  whom  he  designates  as  "  a  young  man,"  and  to  com- 
municate to  him  God's  purposes.  Somewhat  different  is  the  opinion  of  Ewald, 
inasmuch  as  Evrald  holds  that  it  was  an  angel  of  far  higher  dignity,  who,  when 
the  interpreting  angel  was  desirous  to  learn  the  result  of  the  measuring  angel's 
work  (Ewald  believes  that  it  is  an  angel  who  is  designated  as  "  this  young  man  "), 
bids  the  interpreting  angel  to  communicate  to  the  latter  the  will  of  God  as  to 
the  extent  of  the  future  city.     The  view  given  above  appears  the  simplest. 


Ch.  ii.  4-]     THIRD   VISION — THE   MAN   WITH   THE   LINE.  35 

point.^  His  action  appeared  unwise  when  considered  from  a 
higher  standpoint.  The  hand  from  heaven  (as  Neumann 
expresses  it)  turned  back  from  his  folly  the  too  hasty  man, 
and  drew  him  away  from  the  work  he  had  undertaken.  The 
"young  man  "  spoken  of  in  ver.  4  must  not  be  identified,  as 
many  commentators  deem,  with  the  prophet,  but  rather  (as 
Maurer  and  Hitzig)  with  the  man  with  the  measuring  line. 
What  was  said  to  him  was  spoken  for  the  information  of  the 
prophet.  Jerusalem,  which  the  prophet  then  saw  in  her  sad 
desolation,  and  but  thinly  inhabited,  was  destined  by  God's 
decree  to  be  yet  a  city  so  large  that  like  "  all  the  greatest 
cities  of  the  earth,  it  should  without  strong  walls  and  gates 
spread  itself  out  indefinitely  like  villages  "  (Ewald).^  Kliefoth 
maintains  that  if  this  were  all  that  was  signified,  the  city  could 
still  have  been  measured.  But  the  text  in  no  way  implies 
that  the  city  could  not  be  measured,  but  simply  narrates  that 
the  man  was  forbidden  to  measure  it.  The  usage  of  the 
phrase  "  like  villages,"  or  "  like  cities  of  the  open  country," 
will  not  admit  of  the  strain  which  Kliefoth  puts  upon  it.  For 
he  maintains  that  the  prophecy  intimates  that  Jerusalem 
would  be  so  increased  in  the  future,  that  it  would  cease  to 
present  its  old  appearance,  and  instead  of  being  a  city  girt 
about  with  walls,  which  could  be  measured,  and  its  limits 
defined,  it  would  consist  of  a  number  of  open  and  scattered 
villages  over  the  whole  surface  of  the  world.     This  state  of 

^  Compare,  however,  with  Neumann,  Prov.  i.  4,  vii.  71  ;  Kings  iii.  7,  xii    8  ff. 

'  Compare  the  contrast  between  the  "lV?P  "•''^  the  fortified  city,  and  the 
*nSn  "1S3,  the  city  of  the  plain  (lit.,  the  hamlet  of  the  villager,  or  of  him  who 
dwelt  in  the  open  country),  in  i  Sam.  vi.  18,  as  also  the  expression  in  Ezekiel 
ntTlSn  I'^.X  ?y,  against  the  land  of  villages,  or  towns  in  the  open  or  flat  country 
(xxxviii.  II).  In  Esther  ix.  19,  we  read  of  the  Jews  who  were  such  villagers, 
(D''ri2n  according  to  the  Keri,  or  D''Tt"l3n,  according  to  the  written  text,  which  is 
dentical  in  meaning),  i.e.,  inhabitants  of  the  plain  country,  who  were  dwelling  in 
the  cities  of  the  open  country  (niT"13n  ""Dy?),  or  in  the  towns  which  lay  in  the 
flat  or  open  land.  The  throwing  down  of  the  strongholds  C^n^^t?"?!)  is  threat- 
ened as  a  judgment  in  Mic.  v.  10  (ver.  11  in  E.  V.).  The  meaning  of  the  root 
T^S  seems  to  be  "  to  stretch  out,"  "  to  make  level." 


36  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.     [Ch.  ii.  4  (ii.  8). 

things,  according  to  Kliefoth,  the  prophet  predicts  would  be 
brought  about  by  the  glorious  dwelling  of  Jahaveh  in  the  midst 
of  his  people.  To  the  translation  "open  places  "  in  itself  little 
objection  can  be  made,  but  this  explanation  of  its  meaning  is 
certainly  an  attempt  to  extract  from  this  prophecy  far  more 
than  its  terms  naturally  imply. 

Nor  is  there  any  need  to  suppose  that  the  prophecy  refers 
to  a  still  future  period,  as  von  Hofmann  imagines.  The  pro- 
phecy was  fulfilled  by  the  restoration  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem 
under  the  protection  of  God,  even  in  troublous  days.  Though 
surrounded  indeed  by  walls^  Jerusalem  grew  so  fast  that  a 
considerable  number  dwelt  in  villages  outside  the  walls  (comp. 
Neh.  xiii.  20,  21).  Its  population  continually  increased.  The 
city  was  noted  for  its  splendid  appearance  in  the  time  of 
Ptolemy  Philadelphus.  Aristeas'  description  of  the  cityat  that 
era  is  still  extant  (see  crit.  comm.).  If  we  could  be  certain  that 
Herodotus  refers  to  Jerusalem  under  the  name  of  Cadytis, 
which  he  speaks  of  as  "a  city  almost  as  large  as  Sardis" 
(Herod,  iii.  5)  we  .should  have  further  evidence  in  support  of 
this  fact.  But  this  identification  has  been  disputed  on  reason- 
able grounds,  and  that  city  has  been  identified  with  Gaza.^ 
Yet  if  Gaza  was  so  great,  Jerusalem  must  have  been  far 
greater.  Notwithstanding  the  many  additions  made  to  the 
city,  Josephus  speaks  of  it  in  the  days  of  Herod  Agrippa,  by 
reason  of  the  multitude  of  its  inhabitants,  as  even  then  ex- 
tending beyond  the  walls,  so  that  a  new  hill  was  occupied 
with  its  buildings,  which  portion  was  duly  fortified  by  that 
king  {Joseph.  Bell.  Jnd.,  v.  4,  §  2).  In  the  troublous  times 
which  intervened  between  the  days  of  Zechariah  and  those  of 
our  Lord,  notwithstanding  the  disasters  that  occasionally  fell 

'  Cadytis  is  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew  Kadesh,  the  Holy,  the  name  retained  in 
the  Arabic  name  of  Jerusalem,  El  Kuds.  This  might  be  explained  to  be  Jeru- 
salem in  Herod,  ii.  159,  the  passage  in  iii.  5,  however,  shows  that  Gaza  was  the 
city  really  meant.     See  Rawlinson's  Herodotus,  vol.  ii. 


Ch.  ii.  5-13  (ii.  9-17)-]  THIRD  VISION-ADDRESS  OF  THE  ANGEL.    37 

upon  the  holy  city,  abundant  proof  was  given  that  the  Lord 
was  not  forgetful  of  his  promise  specially  to  shield  and  protect 
it.  The  troubles  that  occurred  ought  to  be  viewed  in  the 
same  light  as  the  various  afflictions  that  fell  upon  Israel  after 
their  entrance  into  the  Promised  Land,  up  to  the  days  of 
David,  notwithstanding  the  promises  of  Divine  protection  ; 
which  promises  would  have  been  fully  accomplished  if  the 
people  had  kept  the  covenant  committed  to  them,  and 
which  promises  were  accomplished  in  great  measure  notwith- 
standing their  many  sins. 

The  address  to  the  prophet  (ch.  ii.  6-13),  and  through  him 
to  the  Israelites  who  had  not  returned  to  their  land,  which 
address  immediately  follows,  throws  much  light  on  the 
meaning  of  the  vision.  It  is  a  matter  of  little  importance 
whether  the  speaker  be  supposed  to  have  been  the  angel  of 
Jahaveh  or  the  interpreting  angel.  The  former  is  the  more 
probable.  The  passage  from  ver.  6  to  the  end  (ver.  13)  must 
be  considered  to  form  but  one  address,  although  the  angel 
sometimes  identifies  himself  with  Jahaveh  (ver.  10),  and  some- 
times speaks  as  his  delegate  (ver.  8,  9).  The  angel  speaks 
in  the  first  person,  when  he  gives  the  very  words  of  God,  and 
in  the  third  when  he  conveys  merely  their  general  meaning 
(Pressel). 

The  address  begins  with  a  call  to  the  exiles  still  in  Babylon 
to  flee  forth  from  that  place.  This  command  is  partly  a 
reminiscence  of  Isa.  xlviii.  20,  and  of  the  similar  injunctions 
to  be  found  in  Jer.  Ii.  6,  9,  45.  It  was  the  Divine  intention 
speedily  to  chastise  the  nations,  and  special  judgments  were 
to  descend  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Babylonia.  The  reason 
for  the  command  immediately  follows:  "for  I  have  spread 
you  abroad  as  the  four  winds  of  heaven."  Hitzig  and  Kliefoth 
(as  also  Ewald,  with  our  A.  V.)  are  correct  in  thus  translating 
the  word,  which  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  prophetic  perfect, 
referring  to  blessings  which  were  to  come,  and  not  to  a  disper- 


38  ZECIIARIAH   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.    [Ch.  ii.  6,  7  (ii.  10,  11). 

sion  which  was  past.  It  cannot  refer  to  a  new  dispersion  of 
the  covenant  people  which  loomed  darkly  in  the  future. 
Nor  does  the  sentence  mean,  "  I  have  scattered  you  to  the 
four  winds  of  the  heaven,"  which  erroneous  view  of  the 
passage  has  given  rise  to  a  various  reading  tending  that  way 
which  occurs  in  some  MSS.,  and  is  found  in  the  Vulgate  and 
the  Syriac  (see  crit.  comm.).  For  why,  as  Hitzig  inquires, 
should  the  exiles  be  specially  exhorted  to  return  from  the 
north,  if  they  had  been  scattered  to  all  the  four  winds  of 
heaven  .'' 

The  words  contain  the  promise  of  a  blessing,  the  greatness 
of  which  on  the  one  hand,  combined  with  the  certainty  of  the 
judgments  impending  specially  over  Babylon  on  the  other, 
was  designed  to  stir  up  those  exiles  to  return,  who,  for  pur- 
poses of  gain,  or  from  fear  of  the  journey  and  the  troubles  by 
the  way,  were  yet  lingering  behind  in  the  land  whither  their 
fathers  had  been  carried  away  captive.  While  troubles  w^ere 
soon  to  break  forth  at  Babylon,  the  land  v/hich  was  given  by 
God  to  their  forefathers  was  the  land  on  which  a  blessing  from 
God  was  to  descend.  By  reason  of  that  blessing  the  prophet 
was  informed  his  people  should  yet  be  spread  abroad  (see 
crit.  comm.)  as  the  four  winds  of  heaven,  and  fill  the  face  of 
the  world  with  fruit  (Isa.  xxvii.  6).  As  in  later  days  the 
apostles  were  bidden  to  tarry  in  Jerusalem  until  they  were 
endued  with  power  from  on  high  (Luke  xxiv.  49),  so  the 
exiles  were  here  commanded  to  return  to  Jerusalem,  and  to 
the  land  of  their  forefathers,  as  the  place  in  which  they  would 
receive  the  promised  blessing,  as  well  as  avoid  the  impending 
dangers. 

What  these  dangers  were  may  be  seen  from  the  great 
inscription  of  Darius  cut  into  the  rock  at  Behistun,  and 
supposed  by  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  to  have  been  executed  in  the 
fifth  year  of  the  reign  of  Darius.  That  inscription  records 
two  great  rebellions  in  Babylonia,  and  two  captures  of  the 


Ch.  ii.  h  io(ii.  I2-I5).]  THIRD  VISION-ADDRESS  OF  THE  ANGEL.  39 

city  of  Babylon,  one  effected  by  Darius  in  person,  the  other 
by  one  of  his  generals.^  The  Jews  in  Babylon  who  did  not 
listen  to  the  prophetic  warning,  suffered  no  doubt  severely  in 
the  confusions  of  that  period  ;  while  those  who  returned  to 
Palestine,  and  obeyed  the  command  to  flee  out  of  Babylon, 
delivered  their  souls,  that  is  their  lives,  and  were  not  cut  off  in 
her  iniquity. 

The  promise  w^as  further  made  that  God  would  send  his 
angel — the  Angel  of  Jahaveh.  This  great  angel  announces 
that  Jahaveh  had  sent  him  "  after  glory  ; "  that  is,  not  merely 
to  acquire  honour  by  the  success  of  his  mission  (Maurer, 
Hitzig,  Ewald),  nor,  as  Bottcher  has  attempted  to  prove  {De 
Inferis,  §§408-410),  on  an  honourable  mission  (see  crit.  comm.), 
but  in  order  to  get  honour  over  the  heathen  by  the  display, 
first  of  judgment  and  then  of  mercy.  The  first  proof  of  his 
coming  was  to  be  seen  in  the  lighting  down  of  the  anger  of 
Jahaveh  upon  the  nations  which  had  plundered  and  oppressed 
those  who  were  indeed  as  precious  as  the  apple  of  his  eye. 
"The  daughter  of  Zion  "  was  specially  bidden  to  rejoice  and 
be  glad,  because  Jahaveh  himself  would  come  and  dwell  in 
her  midst ;  which  can  scarcely  signify  that  the  Lord  would 
exhibit  once  more  his  glory  in  the  sanctuary,  as  in  the  days 
of  old.  As  interpreted  by  the  later  prophecies,  the  promise 
seems  rather  to  refer  to  the  coming  of  Christ  in  the  flesh. 


^  The  first  was  that  of  Nadinta-belus,  or  Nidintabel,  as  it  is  in  the  Median  text. 
He  pretended  to  be  Nebuchadnezzar,  raised  a  powerful  amiy,  and  fought  a 
pitched  battle  in  which  he  was  utterly  routed,  and  slain  after  the  capture  of 
Babylon.  The  second  rebellion  was  that  of  Aracus  (Arakha),  who  aleo  became 
king  of  Babylon  on  the  same  pretence,  but  who  was  afterwards  defeated  by  Inta- 
phernes  and  crucified.  A  different  account  of  what  was  probably  the  first  rebellion 
is  given  in  Herod,  (iii.  150-159).  The  readiness  of  the  Babylonians  to  join  in  these 
rebellions  proves  how  sorely  they  must  have  felt  the  altered  state  of  circumstances 
under  which  they  were  no  longer  rulers  but  subjects.  Sir  H.  Rawlinson's  transla- 
tion of  the  Behistun  inscription  appears  in  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  i.,  and  the 
translation  of  the  Median  text  by  Dr.  J.  Oppert  in  the  Records,  vol.  vii.  The 
text  and  translation  of  the  former  is  also  given  by  Prof.  George  Rawlinson  at 
the  end  of  his  edition  of  Herodotus. 


40  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.    [Ch.  ii.  ii  (ii.  15). 

In  consequence  of  this  advent  it  is  further  said,  "  Many- 
nations  shall  join  themselves  to  Jahaveh  in  that  day,  and 
shall  be  to  me  for  a  people  ;  so  will  I  dwell  in  thy  midst, 
and  thou  shalt  know  that  Jahaveh  of  hosts  hath  sent  me  unto 
thee." 

Thus  the  nations  or  Gentiles  are  distinctly  predicted  as 
destined  to  enter  into  the  very  same  relations  with  God  as 
the  Hebrews  themselves  ;  while  it  is  not  asserted  that  in  doing 
so  those  nations  would  be  compelled  to  model  their  national 
life  after  that  of  the  Hebrews.  Stahelin  justly  recognises 
here  the  higher  strain  of  prophecy,  and  the  idea  of  the  spread 
of  the  true  religion  among  the  Gentile  world,  which  character- 
ises the  latter  chapters  of  Isaiah  (xl.-lxv.),  which  chapters  in 
other  places  also  are  imitated  by  Zechariah.^ 

The  points  touched  upon  in  this  exhortation  are  that 
Jahaveh  would  visit  the  heathen  in  judgment ;  that  he  would 
dwell  in  the  midst  of  Israel ;  and  that,  as  a  consequence 
thereof,  many  of  the  heathen  would  be  joined  to  the  people 
of  Judah,  and  form  with  them  one  people.  The  first  two  of 
these  are  distinctly  set  forth  in  the  second  and  third  visions. 
The  last  particular,  namely,  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles  into 
covenant  with  God,  in  such  a  way  as  to  form  one  people  with 
the  Jews,  is  mentioned  here,  where  the  enlargement  of  the  city 
of  Jerusalem  might  have  been  expected  to  be  spoken  of. 
This  leads  us  to  conclude,  not  indeed  with  Kliefoth,  that  the 
foundation  and  enlargement  of  the  spiritual  Jerusalem  was 
primarily  the  subject  of  the  third  vision,  but  that  the  enlarge- 
ment of  the  earthly  city  was  in  reality  but  a  type  and  picture 
of  the  building  of  that  spiritual  city  in  whose  light  the  nations 
of  them  that  are  saved  should  walk  (Rev.  xxi.  23,  comp. 
Heb.  xii.  22). 

Another  point,  however,  yet  remains  to  be  noticed  in  this 
remarkable  address,  namely,  the  expression  "  Jahaveh  shall 
'  Stahelin,  Z>ie  Messiattisc/un  IVcLssagungen  dcs  alien  Tl-^A  pp.  11 8-9. 


Ch.  ii.  12  (ii.  i6).]  THIRD  VISION — ADDRESS  OF  THE  ANGEL        4 1 

inherit  (the  tense  is  the  prophetic  perfect)  J udah  as  his  portion 
upon  {i.e.  in)  the  holy  land."  The  first  words  are  almost  a 
quotation  from  Deut.  xxxii.  9,  "  For  the  portion  of  Jahaveh  is 
his  people,  Jacob  is  the  lot  of  his  inheritance ;"  and  their  use 
tends  to  prove  that  by  the  name  J  udah  in  this  place  all  Israel 
is  signified.  But  the  verse  immediately  preceding  that  state- 
ment in  Zechariah  says  that  the  people  of  God  and  the 
people  of  the  covenant  were  not  to  be  confined  to  "  Israel 
after  the  flesh."  Judah  seems  to  be  used  here  as  a  name 
for  Israel  in  general,  because  by  far  the  larger  portion  of  the 
returned  exiles  belonged  to  that  tribe,  and  its  name  ultimately 
became  that  of  the  nation.  But  the  blessings  promised  to 
Israel,  and  especially  the  promise  of  becoming  the  Lord's 
portion  and  inheritance,  are  blessings  not  confined  to  "  Israel 
after  the  flesh,"  but  are  part  and  parcel  of  the  glorious  privi- 
lege of  "the  Israel  of  God"  (Gal.  vi.  16). 

The  term  "  holy  land  "  is  found  only  in  this  single  passage. 
Synonymous  expressions,  such  as  the  land  of  Jahaveh  (Isa. 
xiv.  2  ;  Hos.  ix.  3),  the  land  of  Immanuel  (Isa.  viii.  8),  occur 
elsewhere,  and  the  term  "  holy  cities  "  is  used  for  the  cities  of 
the  land  of  Israel  (Isa.  Ixiv.  10;  comp.  Ps.  Ixxviii.  54).  Jeru- 
salem is  also  termed  the  "  holy  city  "  (Isa.  lii.  i  ;  Neh.  xi.  i), 
and  frequent  mention  is  made  of  the  "holy  mountain,"  etc. 
The  land  of  Palestine  is  no  doubt  primarily  meant  in  Zech. 
ii.  12,  but  as  the  land  is  holy  where  Jahaveh  dwells  (Exod. 
ill.  5),  and  as  the  people  of  the  Lord  are  expressly  mentioned 
by  the  prophet  as  destined  ultimately  to  consist  of  all  "  the 
nations  of  the  earth,"  the  passage  will  bear  a  more  extended 
reference.  The  prophecy  was  fulfilled  in  the  blessings  granted 
to  the  Jews  in  their  own  land,  and  in  the  honour  placed 
upon  that  land  by  the  advent  and  ministry  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  Kohler  fancifully  maintains  that  part  of  the  prophecy 
was  fulfilled  in  the  days  of  Zerubbabel,  and  part  in  the  days  of 
our  Lord  ;  that  the  promised  glory  was  withheld  in  its  fulness 


42  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  ii.  12. 

at  our  Lord's  first  advent  on  account  of  the  unbelief  of  the 
Jewish  nation  ;  that,  therefore,  its  full  accomplishment  is 
reserved  for  a  still  future  day,  when  Jerusalem  shall  be  no 
longer  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles,  the  times  of  the  Gentiles 
having  been  fulfilled  (Luke  xxi.  24). 


CHAPTER     II 


THE  FOURTH  VISION— JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL. 


CHAPTER     II. 


Introductory — The  High  Priest  before  the  Angel,  46 — Hengstenberg's  view,  46 — 
Objections  of  Pressel,  Kohler,  and  Pusey,  47— View  of  Kohler  and  Pressel,  47 — 
The  High  Priest  engaged  in  some  sacerdotal  duty,  47 — Ewald's  view  of  the 
passage,  48 — Objections  of  Hitzig,  49 — Dean  Stanley's  comments,  49 — Objec- 
tions, 50 — The  filthy  garments,  50 — The  Adversary  rebuked,  51,  52 — The 
brand  plucked  from  the  fire,  52 — Jewish  legend,  51,  note — Neumann's  view  of 
Satan,  52,  note.  Rebuke  mentioned  in  Epist.  of  Jude,  53 — Differences  between 
Jude  and  Zechariah,  53 — Legend  mentioned  by  Oicumenius,  54 — The  "Assump- 
tion of  Moses,"  54,  55 — Contests  between  Sammael  and  Michael,  Sammael 
and  Moses,' 55 — Legend  of  death  of  Moses,  55 — View  of  von  Hoffman,  56 — 
Difficulties  in  supposing  Jude  to  have  referred  to  the  "  Assumptio,"  56,  57,  59  — 
The  body  of  Moses  and  the  body  of  Christ,  57 — Heidenheim's  view,  57,  note — 
Baumgarten's  view  of  the  connection  with  Jude  and  Zechariah,  58 — The  burial 
of  Moses,  58,  59 — ^Joshua  the  representative  of  Israel,  60 — The  filthy  garments 
removed,  60,  61 — The  change  of  raiment,  61 — The  clean  mitre,  61,  62 — The 
cry  of  Zechariah,  63—  Close  of  the  scene,  64 — Adjuration  of  the  Angel,  64. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   FOURTH   VISION — JOSHUA   BEFORE   THE   ANGEL. 

The  third  vision  had  brought  vividly  before  the  prophet's 
mind  the  fact  of  the  coming  of  the  Lord  to  Israel,  and  the 
momentous  consequences  with  which  that  coming  was 
fraught.  Israel  was  once  more  to  be  the  people  of  the  Lord, 
and  the  holy  city  was  to  be  enlarged.  But  the  people  of  the 
covenant  were  no  longer  to  be  confined  to  persons  of  the 
stock  of  Abraham,  but  to  consist  of  "  many  nations."  The 
fourth  vision,  recorded  in  the  third  chapter,  is  connected  with 
the  prophecy  of  the  coming  of  Jahaveh  recorded  in  the 
second  chapter,  in  a  way  similar  to  that  in  which  the  puri- 
fication of  the  sons  of  Levi,  spoken  of  by  Malachi,  stands 
related  to  the  prophecy  of  the  coming  of  the  Angel  of  the 
Covenant  predicted  by  that  prophet  (Mai.  iii.  1-4). 

It  is  unnecessary  to  examine  at  any  length  by  whose 
instrumentality  the  fourth  vision  was  pointed  out  to  the 
prophet.  The  matter  cannot  be  decided  with  any  degree  of 
certainty.  The  subject  to  the  verb  "showed,"  in  the  first 
verse,  is  most  naturally  considered  to  be  the  interpreting 
angel.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  the  office  of  that  angel 
"was  to  explain,  not  to  show  the  visions"  (Pusey,  Kohler, 
and  Keil).  The  interpreting  angel  in  the  very  next  vision, 
is  represented  as  showing  the  vision  as  well  as  interpret- 
ing the  same.^     It  is  more  in  accordance  with  the  analogy 

^  Nor  does  the  passage  in  chap.  i.  20  prove  that  the  vision  of  "the  four 
smiths  "  was  exhibited  by  the  Lord  to  the  prophet  without  the  intervention  of  the 
interpreting  angel.  It  is  better  to  explain  even  the  statement  of  that  verse,  in  the 
context  in  which  it  occurs,  as  signifying  that  the  interpreting  angel  was  the 
medium  of  the  revelation. 


46  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  iii.  1-3. 

of  the  visions  of  Ezckicl,  and  with  those  of  St.  John  in  the 
New  Testament,  as  well  as  with  the  general  scope  of  this 
vision,  to  view  the  interpreting  angel  as  the  person  who  ex- 
hibited the  various  scenes  to  the  prophet. 

In  the  vision  before  us  Joshua  the  high  priest  was  seen 
to  stand  before  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh.  At  the  right  hand  of 
the  high  priest  appeared  the  Adversary  (for  the  use  of  the 
article  proves  that  the  word  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  regular 
proper  name,  as  in  i  Chron.  xxi.  i  ;  Ps.  cix.  6 ;  see  crit. 
comni.),  opposing  in  some  way  the  action  of  the  high  priest, 
or  accusing  him  to  the  angel.  Joshua  was  meanwhile 
clothed  in  filthy  garments,  and  stood  before  the  angel.  It  is 
not  clearly  intimated  for  what  purpose  the  high  priest  was 
thus  standing  before  the  angel.  For  the  phrase,  "  to  stand 
before  one,"  is  used  in  a  judicial  sense,  both  of  the  plaintiff 
(Num.  xxvii.  2  ;  i  Kings  iii.  16)  and  the  defendant  (Num. 
XXXV.  12  ;  Dcut.  xix.  17  ;  Josh.  xx.  6)}  But  it  is  also  used 
more  frequently  in  a  ministerial  signification,  of  an  inferior 
standing  before  his  superior  for  service,  and  in  order  to 
minister  to  him  (Gen.  xli.  46  ;  Deut.  i.  38  ;  i  Kings  i.  2  ; 
I  Kings  X.  8,  etc.). 

Hengstenberg  is  of  opinion  that  the  high  priest  was  seen  in 
the  sanctuary  engaged  in  the  work  of  his  priestly  office 
(comp.  Jud.  XX.  28  ;  2  Chron.  xxix.  11),  and  that  the  Angel 
of  the  Lord,  to  testify  his  approval,  condescended  to  appear 
in  the  temple  attended  by  a  company  of  angels  (see  ver.  7). 
Satan,  beholding  with  envy  this  restoration  of  gracious 
relations  between  the  people  of  God  and  tlicir  Lord,  sought 
to  damage  the  high  priest  by  his  accusations.  But  the 
accusations  of  Satan,  though  true  (as  proved  by  the  filthiness 


'  These  passages  are  quite  sufficient  to  refute  tlie  very  incautious  statement 
of  Hengstenberg,  that  this  exjiression  is  never  used  of  the  appearance  of  a  de- 
fendant before  a  judge,  but  always  of  a  servant  before  his  lord.  Hengstenberg, 
however,  no  doubt  regarded  these  passages  in  a  different  light. 


Ch.  iii.  1-3.]  FOURTH  VISION — JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL.   47 

of  the  garments  in  which  the  high  priest  ministered),  were 
repelled  by  a  gracious  manifestation  of  God's  pardoning 
grace,  declared  through  the  Angel  of  the  Lord. 

Pressel  goes  too  far  when  he  asserts  that  this  exposition 
(adopted  among  the  moderns  not  only  by  Hengstenberg,  but 
by  Schegg  and  Baumgarten,  and  held  by  Theodoret  among 
the  early  expositors)  scarcely  requires  refutation.  Dr.  Pusey 
considers  it  a  decisive  objection  against  the  view  taken  by 
Hengstenberg,  that  though  "  the  angel  speaks  with  au- 
thority, yet  God's  Presence  in  him  is  not  spoken  of  so 
distinctly,  that  the  high  priest  could  be  exhibited  as  stand- 
ing before  him,  as  in  his  office  before  God."  In  the  course  of 
the  vision,  it  is  true,  no  mention  is  made  of  any  act  of  wor- 
ship performed  on  the  part  of  the  high  priest,  nor  of  any 
intercession  made  by  him.  Throughout  the  scene  he  appears 
rather  in  the  character  of  one  accused.  But  the  force  of  all 
these  objections  can  be  broken  by  a  very  slight  modification  of 
this  view.  Kohler's  objection,  that  the  high  priest  would  not 
have  been  represented  as  venturing  to  appear  before  God  to 
perform  the  duties  of  his  sacerdotal  function  in  filthy  garments 
(Exod.  xix.  10),  is  rather  out  of  place,  when  it  is  remembered 
that  the  whole  is  a  vision. 

It  has  been  maintained  that  the  only  alternative  is  to 
regard  Joshua  as  standing  before  the  judgment-seat  of  the 
angel  (Kohler,  Pressel).  Satan  is  supposed  to  have  occupied 
the  ordinary  position  of  an  accuser  of  the  high  priest,  by 
standing  at  his  right  side,  in  accordance  with  the  practice  on 
such  occasions,  depicted  in  Ps.  cix.  6.  But  no  regular  judicial 
process  is  described  in  the  vision,  and  no  mention  is  made  of 
the  angel's  sitting  on  a  throne  of  judgment.  The  reference 
made  by  Hitzig  to  such  passages  as  Ps.  ix.  5,  Isa.  xxviii.  6, 
does  not  prove  this  point. 

The  high  priest  was  probably  seen  in  the  vision,  busied 
about  some  part  of  his  priestly  duties.     While  thus  engaged, 


48  ZECIIARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  iii.  1-3. 

he  discovered  that  he  was  actually  standing  as  a  criminal 
before  the  angel,  and  while  the  great  Adversary  accused 
him,  the  truth  of  that  accusation  was  but  too  clearly  seen 
by  the  filthy  garments  with  which  he  then  perceived  that 
he  was  attired.  The  scene  is  not  described  with  sufficient 
fulness  to  allow  us  to  decide  with  certainty  as  to  the  locality 
in  which  it  took  place.  The  high  priest,  as  Lange  notes,  in 
an  ideal  sense  stood  always  in  the  presence  of  God.  But 
the  express  mention  of  his  being  clad  in  filthy  garments, 
clearly  indicates  that  he  ought  to  have  been  clad  in  clean 
and  white  robes,  such  as  those  which  the  high  priest  was 
commanded  to  wear  on  special  occasions.  Wherever  he 
may  have  been  standing,  he  appeared  in  the  character  of 
God's  high  priest.  His  appearance  in  filthy  official  robes 
(which  would  have  been  a  gross  transgression  of  the  Law  of 
Moses  had  it  occurred  in  fact)  symbolized  the  transgressions 
with  which  the  high  priest  was  defiled,  and  rendered  him  an 
easy  prey  to  the  malicious  accusations  of  the  Adversary  of 
Israel. 

Ewald's  interpretation  of  this  passage  must  be  rejected  as 
purely  fanciful.  According  to  his  view,  the  high  priest  was 
actually  accused  at  the  time,  or  was  then  dreading  an  accusa- 
tion, at  the  Persian  court.  This  accusation  is  supposed  to 
form  the  superstructure  on  which  the  vision  is  built.  Zech- 
ariah,  with  peculiar  sympathy,  depicts  the  high  priest  as 
suffering  under  grievous  accusations,  and  promises  him  a 
glorious  acquittal.  The  garments  of  the  high  priest  are  repre- 
sented as  dirty,  because  robes  of  that  character  were  usually 
worn  by  accused  persons  as  indicative  of  mourning.  The 
ardent  hopes  of  the  prophet  were,  according  to  Ewald,  soon 
justified  by  the  event.  On  receipt  of  the  governor's  report, 
which  presented  an  impartial  statement  of  facts,  an  inquiry 
was  instituted  by  authority  into  the  case,  the  accusation  was 
repelled,  and  the  decree  of  Cyrus  which  had  given  permission 


Ch.  iii.  1-3.]  FOURTH  VISION. — JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL.   49 

for  the  rebuilding  of   the  temple  was    duly  confirmed  and 
ordered  to  be  carried  into  execution. 

The  passages  in  Ezra  relied  upon  by  Ewald  in  support  of 
this  interpretation  (Ezra  v.  5,  vi.  13),  do  not  really  support 
it.  Nothing  is  said  in  them  of  any  personal  accusations 
preferred  against  Joshua  as  the  representative  of  the  people. 
Hitzig  has  rightly  considered  it  fatal  to  Ewald's  interpre- 
tation that  Zerubbabel,  not  Joshua,  was  the  real  represen- 
tative of  the  Jewish  people.  For  the  former  was  the  civil 
governor  of  the  colony,  and  the  real  leader  in  the  work  of 
restoration  (Ezra  iv.  2  ;  see  also  Zech.  iv.  7,  9).  Moreover,  as 
Hitzig  further  argues,  there  is  no  mention  in  Zechariah  of 
any  accusation  made  at  the  Persian  court ;  the  accusation 
alluded  to  in  this  chapter  is  an  accusation  preferred  before 
Jahaveh,  or  his  Angel,  and  it  can  in  no  way  refer  to  a  charge 
made  before  the  tribunal  of  an  earthly  monarch.  Further,  as 
has  often  been  observed  (Kohler,  etc.),  the  custom  of  accused 
persons  presenting  themselves  before  a  tribunal  in  sordid 
attire  was  in  accordance  with  Roman  usage,  but  opposed  to 
Jewish  habits.  Josephus  informs  us  that  in  such  cases 
persons  were  wont  to  appear  habited  in  black  garments  {Antig., 
xiv.  9,  §  4).  But  the  garments  of  Joshua  were  not  black  robes, 
but  robes  defiled  with  abominable  filth,  as  the  expression  in 
the  original  most  distinctly  indicates. 

Still  more  fanciful  is  the  short  comment  on  the  passage  by 
Dean  Stanley,  based  on  Ewald's  interpretation.  "  The  splen- 
did attire  of  the  high  priest,  studded  with  jewels,  had  been 
detained  at  Babylon,  or,  at  least,  could  not  be  worn  without 
the  special  permission  of  the  king ;  and  until  the  accusations 
had  been  cleared  away  this  became  still  more  impossible 
(i  Esdras  iv.  54;  Ewald,  v.  85).  But  the  day  was  coming,  as 
w^as  seen  in  Zechariah's  dream,  when  the  adversary  would 
be  baffled,  the  cause  won,  and  the  soiled  and  worn  clothing  of 
the  suffering  exile  be  replaced  by  the  old  magnificence  of 

E 


50  ZECIIARIAH   AND   HIS   rROPIIECIES.         [Ch.  iii.  1-3. 

Aaron  or  Zadok."  ^  It  is  a  pity  that  such  unproved  assump- 
tions should  be  put  forward  as  sober  history.  Apart  from  all 
other  considerations,  the  "  filthy  garments "  described  in  the 
vision  cannot  have  been  "  soiled  and  worn  clothing,"  nor  can 
the  counter  expressions  signify  "  the  splendid  attire  of  the 
high  priest." 

The  filthy  garments  worn  by  the  high  priest  denote  the 
sins  by  which  he  was  encompassed.  Thus  we  read  in  Isaiah 
"  We  are  all  as  the  unclean,  and  all  our  righteousness  as  a 
defiled  garment"  (Isa.  Ixiv.  5);  "When  the  Lord  shall  have 
washed  away  the  filth  of  the  daughters  of  Zion  "  {Isa.  iv.  4)  ; 
and  mention  is  made  in  the  Proverbs  of  "  a  generation  clean 
in  its  own  eyes,  and  it  is  not  washed  from  its  filthiness " 
(Prov.  XXX.  9).  In  all  these  passages  the  noun  is  used  with 
which  the  adjective  found  in  our  text  is  connected.- 

It  has  been  argued  (Kohler,  Pressel)  that  the  sin  referred 
to  was  none  other  than  the  neglect  of  the  rebuilding  of  the 
temple,  in  which  no  doubt  the  high  priest,  from  his  position, 
had  a  heavy  share.  But  though  this  may  have  been  one  of 
those  sins  of  which  Joshua  was  guilty,  and  of  which  he  was 
accused  by  the  Adversary,  there  is  little  doubt  that,  while 
Joshua's  own  personal  sins  added  their  quota  to  the  filthiness 
of  his  garments,  he  is  represented  in  the  vision  not  merely  as 
laden  with  his  own  sins,  but  with  those  of  the  people  whose 
representative  as  high  priest  he  Avas  before  God.  For  the  high 
priest  was  the  representative  of  the  priesthood,  and  the  priests 
representatives  of  the  people  of  Israel,  who  were  "  a  kingdom 
of  priests  and  a  holy  nation "  (Exod.  xix.  6).  Joshua's  sin 
is  therefore  spoken  of  in  verse  9  as  "the  sin  of  the  land," 
whereby  the   whole   people    were  defiled   (Hitzig).      "  Since, 


-  Lectures  on  iheyavish  Church,  vol.  iii.  p.  103.     Second  Edition. 

^  No  less  emphatic  are  other  passages,  such  as  "  and  they  were  defiled  in  their 
own  works  (-IKPP'I)  "  Ps.  cvi.  39.  Comp.  tlie  kindred  expressions  in  Rev.  iii.  4, 
vii,  14  (see  crit.comm.). 


Ch.  iii.  1-3.]  FOURTH  VISION. — JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL.    5  I 

also,  the  whole  series  of  visions  relates  to  the  restoration  from 
the  Captivity,  the  guilt  for  which  Satan  impleads  him  with 
Jerusalem,  and  Jerusalem  in  him,  includes  the  whole  guilt, 
which  had  rested  upon  them,  so  that  for  a  time  God  had 
seemed  to  have  cast  away  his  people  "  (Pusey).  ^ 

That  this  is  the  true  view  of  the  case  appears  by  the  words 
of  the  angel  with  which  he  rebuked  the  Adversary.  "  Ja- 
haveh  rebuke  thee,  O  thou  Adversary,  even  Jahaveh  rebuke 
thee,  he  who  delights  in  Jerusalem  ;  is  not  this  a  brand  plucked 
out  of  the  fire  .'' "  In  other  words,  because  the  Lord  delights 
in  Jerusalem,  notwithstanding  the  offences  of  the  people,  the 
priesthood  of  Levi  which  ministered  for  the  people  in  holy 
things  would  be  rendered  once  more  acceptable  in  his  sight. 
Hence  God  had  already  delivered  both  priests  and  people 
from  captivity  as  brands  plucked  out  of  the  fire.^ 

^  The  Targumist,  and  the  Jewish  commentators  R.  Salomo-ben-Yizhak  (Rashi), 
Kimchi  and  others,  are  guilty  of  an  anachronism  in  supposing  the  guilt  alluded  to 
to  be  that  Joshua's  sons  had  married  strange  wives  (Ezra  x.  18).  Those  marriages 
took  place  at  least  sixty  years  later  than  the  vision  of  Zechariah.  Jerome  does  not 
exactly  state  his  agreement  in  this  opinion,  but  he  writes  as  if  he  were  not  aware  of 
the  anachronism  involved.  "Quod  autem  sequitur,  Jesus  erat  imbutus  vestibus 
sordidis,  tripliciter  interpretantur  vel  ob  conjugium  illicitum,  vel  ob  peccata 
populi,  vel  propter  squalorem  captivitatis." 

^  Jewish  tradition  has  concocted  a  stoiy,  based  on  the  statements  here  made 
regarding  Joshua,  and  those  respecting  Ahab  and  Zedekiah,  the  false  prophets,  in 
Jer.  xxix.  20,  23.  The  story  is  in  itself  a  strange  tissue  of  anachronisms.  Accord- 
ing to  it  Sennacherib's  daughter  accused  Ahab  and  Zedekiah  of  tempting  her  to 
violate  her  chastity.  They  pleaded  in  excuse  a  Divine  direction.  Sennacherib 
thereupon  determined  to  try  them  by  fire,  stating  that  if  their  words  were  true  they 
would  no  doubt  be  delivered  as  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego.  On  their 
pleading  that  they  were  but  two  persons,  and  so  might  not  thus  be  saved,  the  king 
gave  them  liberty  to  select  a  companion  to  be  cast  into  the  fire  with  them.  They 
selected  accordingly  Joshua  the  high  priest,  hoping  to  be  delivered  through  his 
merits,  but  perished  in  the  flames,  while  Joshua  was  saved,  though  his  garments 
were  consumed.  On  the  king  asking  the  cause  of  this  fact,  since  the  garments  of 
Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego,  were  not  affected  by  the  fire,  Joshua  replied 
that  it  was  because  of  the  united  merits  of  the  three  men.  The  king  rejoined  that 
Abraham,  though  likewise  cast  into  the  fire  of  the  Chaldeans,  had  escaped  though 
a  single  individual.  Whereupon  Joshua  answered  that  his  garments  were  de- 
stroyed because  they  were  defiled  by  his  companionship  with  the  evil  men  in  whose 
company  he  had  been  cast  into  the  flames.     The  moral  of  the  strange  story  is 


52  ZECHARIAII    AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  ili.  1-3. 

The  reference  in  the  last  clause  must^  after  the  analogy  of 
Amos  iv.  II,  be  interpreted  as  referring  to  the  heavy  judg- 
ments of  God,  by  which  the  people  had  been  consumed  as 
in  a  furnace.  The  bondage  in  Egypt  is  spoken  of  elsewhere 
as  an  iron  furnace  {Deut  iv.  20  ;  i  Kings  viii.  5 1  ;  Jer.  xi.  4), 
and  the  captivity  in  Babylon  likewise  is  termed  (Isa.  xlviii.  10) 
"the  furnace  of  affliction." 

Kohlcr  considers  the  fire  to  refer  to  the  guilt  under  which 
the  nation  lay  on  account  of  their  neglect  of  the  rebuilding 
of  the  temple.  This  neglect  had  rendered  the  people  "  un- 
clean "  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  (Hag.  ii.  11-15)  and  brought 
down  on  them  God's  heavy  displeasure.  Out  of  this  state  of 
indifference  they  had  been  graciously  revived,  and  both  priests 
and  people  had  been  stirred  up  to  "  consider  their  ways " 
by  the  preaching  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah.  God,  who  had 
had  mercy  on  them  in  their  lowest  estate,  would  not  now  cast 
them  off  on  account  of  that  sin  and  guilt  from  which  he  had 
saved  them  by  his  grace.  But,  as  Keil  remarks,  if  Satan's 
accusation  had  been  based  chiefly  on  the  neglect  of  restoring 
the  temple,  the  accusation  would  have  been  rather  late,  for 
the  active  resumption  of  the  work  of  rebuilding  the  holy 
edifice  had  taken  place  five  months  previously  to  the  vision 
(comp.  Hag.  i.  15  with  Zech.  i.  7).  Moreover,  though  guilt 
may  lead  to  ruin,  it  cannot  be  suitably  described  as  a  fire,  nor 
can  the  removal  of  that  guilt  be  pictured  as  a  deliverance  out 
of  the  fire.  "  Fire  is  a  symbol  of  punishment  not  of  sin  " 
(Keil). 

The  deliverance  commenced  with  the  rebuke  of  the  Ad- 
versary, No  railing  accusation  w^as  adduced  against  him,  but 
he  was  rebuked  with  solemn  dignity,  llis  accusations  were 
indeed  true  ;  but  they  proceeded  from   malice  on  his  part.^ 

that  the  pious  few  on  emth  often  sufifer  in  this  world  by  reason  of  the  sins  of  those 
about  them,  but  shall  be  saved  in  the  world  to  come.  See  Buxtorfs  Lex.  Chald. 
and  Ta!m.,  under  the  word  D''p.. 

'  The  idea  of  Neumann,  that  Satan  is  to  be  regarded  not  as  a  distinct  evil 


Ch.  iii.  1-3.]   FOURTH  VISION. — JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL.    53 

His  malice  insured  his  own  overthrow.  "  The  rebuke  of 
God,"  as  Pusey  has  well  observed,  "  must  be  with  power." 
It  carries  destruction  in  its  train.  "  Thou  hast  rebuked  the 
nations,  thou  hast  destroyed  the  ungodly"  (Ps.  ix.  5).  "The 
nations  shall  rush  (roar)  like  the  rushing  (roaring)  of  many 
waters  :  but  he  shall  rebuke  them,  and  they  shall  flee  far 
off,  and  shall  be  chased  as  the  chaff  of  the  mountains  before 
the  wind,  and  like  a  rolling  thing  (rather,  like  chaff)  before  the 
whirlwind  "  (Isa.  xvii.  13). 

The  rebuke  here  administered  by  the  angel  to  Satan  is. 
identical  with  that  mentioned  in  the  Epistle  of  Jude  (ver.  9), 
where  Michael  the  archangel  is  spoken  of  as  contending 
about  the  body  of  Moses.  The  "  Angel  of  Jahaveh "  in 
Zechariah  is  probably  identical  with  the  angel  called  by  the 
name  of  Michael  in  the  book  of  Daniel  (comp.  Josh.  v.  14  and 
Dan.  xii.  i),  for  that  angel  is  represented  as  having  authority 
over  other  angels,  and  as  bearing  the  name  of  Jahaveh,  and 
standing  up  for  the  people  of  the  Lord.'  The  only  difference 
between  the  passages  in  Zechariah  and  Jude  is,  that  the 
subject  matter  of  dispute  in  the  New  Testament  is  said  to 
have  been  about  "  the  body  of  Moses,"  while  in  the  Old 
Testament  it  was  concerning  Joshua  the  high  priest.  Origen, 
Didymus  of  Alexandria,  and  Apollinaris "  expressly  state 
that  the  quotation  in  Jude  is  from  an  apocryphal  book,  the 
title  of  which,  as  given  by  Origen  and  Didymus  is,  "  the 
Ascension,"  or  "  Assumption,  of  Moses."  ^ 

spirit,  but  as  a  personification  of  the  wrath  of  God,  which  is  here  represented  as 
overcome  by  God's  mercy,  does  not  merit  serious  examination.  Neumann  cites 
in  its  defence  several  curious  opinions  of  Jewish  authorities,  as,  for  instance,  that 
the  old  serpent,  Sammael,  at  the  end  of  the  world  shall  be  changed  into  Messiah, 
the  destroyer  of  Leviathan,  an  idea  based  on  the  fact  that  the  numerical  value  of 
the  letters  in  the  word  for  serpent  E^HJ  corresponds  with  that  of  the  word 
Messiah. 

'  But  see  Note  on  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh,  on  p.  21. 

-  See  the  passages  given  in  full  in  Fritzsche's  Libri  Apocryphi  Vet.  Test.  Grace 
(Lips.  1871),  in  Prjefatio,  pp.  34,  35. 

The  book  in  question  is  called  by  Origen  'Ai/d/Sacrts  tov  Mwtr^ws,  or,  as  it  is 


54  ZECHARIAII    AND    HIS    PROPHECIES,        [Ch.  iii.  1-3. 

It  has  been  also  supposed  that  CEcumenius  (hi  Judac  ep. 
Bibl.  Patr.  iv.  p.  336)  quoted  from  this  apocryphal  book  ; 
but  this  is  by  no  means  certain,  for  CEcumenius  does  not  men- 
tion the  book,  and  the  dispute  between  Satan  and  Michael 
which  he  relates  (from  whatever  source  he  derived  it)  was  a 
dispute  regarding  the  burial  of  Moses,  which  Michael  was  sent 
to  perform,  but  which  Satan  opposed  on  the  ground  of  the 
murder  of  the  Egyptian,  of  which  Moses  had  been  guilty  in 
his  early  career. 

Some  fragments  of  an  apocryphal  book  of  this  name  were 
published  by  Fabricius  in  1722,  but  were  too  small  to  enable 
any  judgment  to  be  formed  as  to  the  nature  of  that  book.  In 
1 86 1,  however,  Dr.  Ceriani,  the  chief  librarian  of  the  Ambro- 
sian  Library  at  Milan,  published  a  large  consecutive  portion 
from  an  ancient  palimpsest,  considered  by  competent  scholars 
to  be  of  the  date  of  the  sixth  century,  if  not  earlier.  Since 
the  publication  of  Ceriani's  work,  the  book  has  attracted  the 
attention  of  many  eminent  scholars,'  who  are  agreed  that  it 
was  com.posed  in  the  first  century  after  Christ,  if  not  earlier. - 

translated  in  Rufinus'  translation  of  Origen's  work,  known  as  "  Origen  De  Prin- 
cipiis,"  iii.  2,  as  the  Greek  original  is  lost,  the  "  Adscensio  Mosis,"  and  quoted  as 
the  'Avd\7j\pLS  Mucriws  (Mwi'o-ftos)  by  Gelasius  (Coviiii.  Act.  Council.  A'ictcni,  ii.  20), 
called  by  Didymus  of  Alexandria  in  the  Latin  translation,  "Moyseos  Assumptio." 
The  book  is  quoted  also  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Evodius  and  Gelasius,  without, 
however,  any  reference  being  made  to  the  dispute  in  question.  See  the  quota- 
tions in  Fritzsche's  work.  It  is  likewise  mentioned  as  one  of  the  apocryphal 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  in  one  of  the  doubtful  works  of  Athanasius,  namely, 
the  "  Synopsis  .Sacra;  Scriptura;,"  and  by  Nicephorus  of  Constantinople  in  his 
"  Stichometria"  appended  to  the  Chronicon  of  Eusebius.  Nicephorus  mentions 
that  it  contained  1400  verses,  i.e.  that  it  was  as  large  as  the  Revelation  of 
St.  John,  to  which  the  same  number  of  verses  was  attributed  (see  Ililgenfeld, 
Nov.  Test,  extra  Canoncmrcccpt.  Lips.  1866  :  Mosis  Assumpt.  p.  98),  in  which  case 
we  have  perhaps  nearly  one-third  of  the  work  still  extant,  see  also  note  next  page. 

'  Fritzsche,  to  whose  introductory  preface  we  must  refer,  gives  a  considerable  list 
of  books  and  articles  from  eminent  scholars,  among  whom  we  may  mention  the 
names  of  Ililgenfeld,  Volkmar,  Schmidt  and  Merx,  Langcn,  Haupt,  Riinsch, 
Wieseler,  Colani  and  Ileidcnheim,  to  which  must  be  added  the  articles  by  Ewald, 
(GiUtinc^.j^dchr.  Anzeigen,  1862),  v.  Gutschmid,  and  Weiss,  refened  to  by  Ililgen- 
feld and  Merx. 

2  Wieseler  considers  tliat   it  dales  from  two  years  before  the  Christian  era  ; 


Ch.  iii.  1-3.]     FOURTH  VISION — JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL.  55 

From  the  portion  discovered  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  the 

book  in  question  ever  contained   any  account   of  a  dispute 

between  Michael  and  Satan  touching  "  the  body  of  Moses."  ^ 

The  account  of  the  contest  between  Sammael,  the  Angel  of 

Death,  and  Michael,  given  in  the  Debarim  Rabbah,  was  one 

respecting  the  soul  of  Moses,  not  about  his  body  after  death. 

The  Angel  of  Death,  says  that  legend,  wished  to  take  away 

the   life   of    Moses,  while    Michael   bitterly   grieved   at    the 

thought.     The  conversation  between  the  two  could  not  have 

been  that  referred  to  by  Jude,  as  it  was  not  properly  speaking 

a  dispute,  nor  is  Michael  said  in  the  legend  to  have  used  the 

words  of  rebuke  quoted  by  the  apostle.     Mention,  however,  is 

made  in   the  same  legend  of  an  actual  contest  which  took 

place  afterwards  between   Moses  and  the  Angel  of  Death, 

whom  Moses  put  to  flight  by  striking  him  with  his  rod,  on 

which  was  inscribed  the  sacred  name  of  Jahaveh.    The  legend 

closes  with  the  statement  that  God  at  last  descended  with 

Michael  and  two  attendant  angels,  stripped  off  the  garments 

of  Moses,  and  with  a  kiss  drew  forth  his  soul  from  his  body. 

Ewald  assigns  it  to  the  date  a.d.  6  ;  Hilgenfeld  ascribes  it  to  A.  D.  46  ;  while  Sclimidt 
and  Merx  think  it  must  have  been  written  between  A.  D.  54  and  64.  It  is  agreed 
that  its  composition  must  have  been  of  a  date  prior  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
by  Titus. 

^  Hilgenfeld's  remarks  on  p.  115  of  his  edition  prove  that  he  has  his  doubts  on 
this  point,  though  he  gives  Jude  9  among  the  fragments  of  the  Alosis  Assiuiiptio. 
Drummond  in  his  yewish  Messuih  asserts  the  fact  as  if  it  were  not  doubtful.  But 
Schmidt  and  Merx  {Archiv  fiir  wisscnschaftl.  Erforschiing  des  A.T.,  Band  i.  p.  126) 
express  decided  doubts  on  the  subject.  They  refer  to  a  note  in  the  margin  of  the 
MS.  written  by  one  who  had  the  whole  book  before  him,  in  which  it  is  stated 
that  the  work  contains  the  prophecies  of  Moses  in  Deuteronomy,  i.e.  is  a 
prophetico-historical  expansion  of  Deut.  xxxii.,  and  that  Moses  is  throughout 
the  chief  speaker,  which  would  lead  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the  book  does 
not  refer  to  circumstances  after  his  death.  The  matter  cannot  be  decided  with 
certainty.  Fritzsche  seems  also  to  have  the  same  doubts,  and  to  consider 
that  Jude  refers  only  to  a  tradition  current  among  the  Jews  (Prjef.  p.  xxxv.). 
Schmidt  and  Merx  note  that  the  book,  as  far  as  one  can  judge  from  its  re- 
mains, has  less  affinity  to  the  fantastical  Haggada  as  it  is  given  in  the  Debarim 
Rabbah  (quoted  above  from  Cappellus'  notes  on  Jude  in  the  Critici  Sacri,  and 
from  Norck's  Rabb.  Parall.  in  Jude  9,  pp.  365,  366)  than  with  a  Midrashic 
account  of  which  we  find  traces  in  the  Targum  on  the  Canticles. 


56  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.        [Ch.  iii.  1-3. 

The  soul  of  Moses  was  placed  by  the  Almighty  beneath  his 
throne  with  the  cherubim  and  seraphim,  while  the  body  of 
the  lawgiver  was  interred  by  the  angels. 

The  Targum  Jerushalmi  on  Deut.  xxxiv.  6,  speaks  of  the 
grave  of  Moses  as  prepared  and  adorned  by  Michael  and 
Gabriel  and  others,  but  no  allusion  is  made  there  to  any 
contest  with  Satan.  As  Huther  has  noted  (in  Meyer's  Krit. 
mid  exeg.  Comin.  on  Judc),  there  is  no  trace  of  any  story  like 
that  in  Jude  to  be  found  in  the  Rabbinical  writings  or  in  the 
book  of  Enoch.  Nor  are  there  any  grounds  but  critical  con- 
jecture for  the  opinion  expressed  by  Schmid,  v.  Hofmann 
{Schriftb.  i.  p.  295),  and  Luthardt,  that  the  cause  of  the  con- 
tention between  Satan  and  the  Archangel  was  that  Michael 
would  not  suffer  the  devil  to  exercise  his  power  over  the 
corpse  of  Moses,  but  rather  sought  to  preserv^e  that  holy  body 
from  corruption. 

The  extreme  uncertainty  (i)  whether,  notwithstanding  the 
statement  of  the  Fathers,  who  may  have  spoken  from  hearsay, 
"  the  Assumption  of  Moses,"  ever  contained  any  account  of 
a  conflict  between  Michael  and  Satan  respecting  "  the  body 
of  Moses  "  ;  {2)  the  possibility  that,  if  such  a  contest  was 
narrated  in  that  book,  it  Avas  substantially  identical  with 
that  already  quoted  from  Jewish  sources  relating  to  the 
sold  of  Moses ;  for  the  legend  about  Moses'  body  mentioned 
by  Qicumenius  cannot  be  traced  to  an  earlier  period  or  to  a 
Jewish  source ;  (3)  the  probability  that  the  Church  Fathers 
referred  to  the  well-known  Jewish  legend,  although  that 
legend  casts  no  light  whatever  on  the  passage  in  Jude  ; 
(4)  the  utter  absence  of  all  proof,  even  on  the  supposition 
that  a  similar  dispute  was  actually  related  in  "  the  Assump- 
tion of  Moses"  that  the  special  words  quoted  by  Jude  as 
spoken  by  the  archangel  were  found  in  that  apocryphal 
book;  (5)  the  facts  on  the  other  hand  that  a  dispute  be- 
tween Satan  and  the  Archangel  is  mentioned  by  the  prophet 


Ch.  iii.  1-3.]  FOURTH  VISION. — JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL.     57 

Zechariah,  in  which  (6)  the  very  words  quoted  by  St. 
Jude  do  occur  :  all  these  reasons  combined  incHne  us  to 
beheve  that  there  is  more  than  is  generally  admitted  in  the 
opinion,  rejected  indeed  by  De  Wette,  Huther  and  Alford,  but 
held  among  the  ancient  expositors  by  Severus  and  Bede,  and 
among  the  more  modern  by  Junius  and  Hammond,  namely, 
that  the  expression  "  body  of  Moses  "  in  Jude  is  to  be  under- 
stood in  an  allegorical  sense,  in  which  case  it  may  well 
signify,  as  Junius  supposed,  the  Church  and  people  of  Israel. 
It  is  true  that  no  instance  can  be  cited  in  which  "  the  body  of 
Moses,"  or  any  similar  expression,  is  used  for  the  people  of 
Israel,^  but  it  is  possible  that  the  phrase  might  have  been 
employed  by  St.  Jude  in  that  signification  in  imitation  of  the 
expression  "  the  body  of  Christ,"  which  is  used  in  re- 
ference to  the  Church  of  Christ  in  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  and 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Jewish  Church  in  the  writer's  day 
had  become  bitterly  opposed  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  while  it 
looked  back  to  Moses  as  its  teacher,  a  claim  which  might 
well  be  admitted  as  true  in  the  most  real  sense  of  the  Jewish 
Church  in  the  days  of  Zechariah.  ^ 

'  Junius,  as  quoted .  in  Poll  Synopsis,  refers  to  2  Mace.  xv.  1 2  as  an  instance 
in  point,  where  he  says  that  use  is  made  of  the  expression  ' '  tlae  body  of  the  Jews  " 
(corpus  Judasorum)  for  the  Jewish  people.  But  the  plirase  in  2  Mace.  xv.  12  is 
Tu5j''Iou5a/wj'  (T^xjT'qixa,  which  is  certainly  no  parallel  to  the  rod  Mwtr^wj  crcS/xa  of  Jude. 

2  Dr.  M.  Heidenheim  in  an  interesting  article  in  his  Vicrteljahrschrift,  Band  iv. 
(Ziirich,  1 871), entitled  "  Beitrage  zu  bessern  Verstandnissder  'Ascensio  Moysis,'" 
considers  St.  Jude  to  refer  to  some  tradition  which  was  afterwards  incorporated 
with  "the  Assumption  of  Moses."  The  real  oi'igin  of  the  legend  or  tradition  must, 
he  thinks,  be  ascribed  to  a  general  allegorical  interpretation  of  Zech.  iii.  The 
filthy  garments  of  Joshua  were,  according  to  this  interpretation,  explained  to  repre- 
sent the  body  of  man,  which,  as  it  has  been  defiled  by  sin,  must  be  changed  into  the 
new  body  of  the  resurrection.  The  action  of  Satan  in  Zech.  was  explained  as  an 
attempt  to  hinder  the  resurrection  of  man.  The  contest  might  very  naturally  be 
supposed  to  have  occurred  with  reference  to  the  body  of  Moses,  more  especially 
on  account  of  the  statement  that  the  Lord  buried  him  (Deut.  xxxiv.  6).  The 
language  of  St.  Paul  about  the  "body  of  sin"  (Rom.  vi.  6)  and  "  the  body  of 
death"  (Rom.  vii.  24),  as  well  as  his  expressions  in  i  Cor.  xv.  43,  are  in  accordance 
with  such  an  explanation.  Heidenheim  might  also  have  added  to  his  Pauline 
references  2  Cor.  v.  1-4.     Note  the  view  of  Baumgarten  given  above,  pp.  58,  59. 


58  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROniECIES.        [Ch.  iii.  1-3. 

Baumgartcn  cannot  then  be  wrong  in  maintaining  that 
Jude  must  have  had  the  passage  of  Zechariah  in  view  when 
he  wrote  his  epistle.  Baumgarten  does  not  indeed  assert  that 
the  subject  of  contention  narrated  by  the  Old  Testament 
prophet  and  by  the  New  Testament  apostle  are  to  be  viewed 
as  identical  ;  but  he  rightly  maintains  that  both  cases  at 
least  fall  under  one  law.  No  higher  proof  could  be  given 
of  the  inviolability  of  the  law  of  God,  and  that  that  law 
knew  no  respect  of  persons,  than  the  fact  that  Moses  the  law- 
giver had  himself  to  die.  The  death  of  Moses  was  indeed  a 
triumph  of  Satan,  who  through  sin  had  brought  death  into 
the  world  (Rom.  v.  12),  and  of  whom  the  writer  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  (ii.  14)  speaks  as  having  "  the  power  of 
death."  If  he,  to  whom  God  had  spoken  face  to  face  as  a 
man  speaketh  to  his  friend  (Exod.  xxxiii.  1 1  ;  Num.  xii.  6-8), 
whose  face  had  often  shone  with  the  glory  of  the  Lord 
(Exod.  xxxiv.  29),  who  had  twice  in  the  presence  of  Divine 
Majesty  fasted  forty  days  and  forty  nights  (Exod.  xxiv.  18  ; 
xxxiv.  28) — if  such  a  man  fell  at  last  under  the  curse  of 
death,  and  had  to  die  like  the  other  Israelites  in  the  wilder- 
ness without  having  been  permitted  to  tread  the  land  of 
promise,  there  was  much  to  favour  the  idea  that  Satan,  the 
Adversary  of  Israel,  and  not  God  the  Redeemer  of  Israel, 
had  gained  the  victory.  To  prevent  such  a  conclusion  being 
arrived  at,  Jahavch  himself  buried  Moses,  and  concealed 
the  place  of  his  sepulture  (Deut.  xxxiv.  6).  Thus  the 
assurance  was  given  to  Israel  that  even  in  a  case  where 
the  great  enemy  had  done  his  worst,  and  Satan  seemed 
to  win  the  day,  the  Divine  power  at  last  intervened,  and 
wrested  the  victory  from  the  l'2vil  One.  hy  burying  the  body 
of  Moses,  the  Lord  delivered  it  from  the  power  of  Satan, 
and  declared  that  the  Evil  One  had  no  more  claim  over  it. 
The  passage  of  Zechariah  exhibited  to  Jude  the  mode  in 
which  a  siniihir  result   was   brought  about  by  God.     In  that 


Ch.  iii.  1-3.]  FOURTH  VISION. — JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL.    59 

passage  Joshua  the  high  priest  was  exhibited  as  placed  in  a 
position  similar  to  that  of  Moses,  that  is,  exposed  like  him  to 
the  power  of  the  great  Adversary.  Who  could  save  from  ruin 
the  high  priest,  discovered  on  the  most  solemn  occasion,  in 
the  presence  of  Jahaveh,  clad  in  filthy  garments,  with  the 
enemy  at  his  right  hand  to  charge  him  with  the  guilt  which 
was  in  itself  so  terribly  apparent  ?  But  if  Joshua  the  high 
priest  had  been  condemned,  Israel  must  also  have  been  con- 
demned with  him,  and  the  Adversary  would  have  gained  his 
desire,  namely,  the  destruction  of  the  whole  people  of  God. 

As  by  an  exercise  of  Divine  grace  and  love  the  impending 
ruin  was  averted  in  the  case  of  Joshua,  so,  according  to  Baum- 
garten,  did  Jude  consider  the  great  Archangel  to  have  dealt 
with  the  Adversary  in  earlier  days,  when  with  words  of  like 
rebuke  he  hindered  that  Evil  One  from  wreaking  his  vengeance 
on  the  body  of  the  great  lawgiver  of  Israel.  It  must  not  be 
forgotten  that  the  special  object  for  which  this  instance  is 
cited  in  the  Epistle  of  Jude  is  to  show  how  lofty  dignity 
even  in  its  utter  ruin  was  respected  by  angels,  and  the  very 
same  object  would  have  been  attained  by  a  quotation  from 
the  Old  Testament  prophet.  Why  then  should  the_a20stle, 
have  gone  out  of  his  way  to  quote  either  Jewish  tradition 
or  some  recent  Jewish  book  .'*  Why  should  he  not  rather 
have  quoted  the  instance  from  the  book  of  Zechariah  which 
must  have  been  present  to  his  mind  ?  All  this  tends  to  con- 
firm the  opinion  that  the  passage  in  Zechariah  was  really  that 
cited  by  Jude.  That  the  enemy  was  merely  rebuked  and  not 
destroyed  proved  that  the  vengeance  which  was  to  be  meted 
out  to  him  was  to  be  executed  in  God's  good  time  and  in  God's 
own  way.  On  the  other  hand,  the  people  of  Israel  had  been 
chosen  by  an  act  of  God's  free  love  (Deut.  iv.  37,  vii.  7,  8, 
X.  15  ;  2  Chron.  vi.  6;  Ps.  cxxxii.  13,  etc.),  and,  because  they 
were  thus  chosen,  God  would  fully  accomplish  his  work  of  love, 
and  re-establish  them  in  spite  of  their  sin  and  rebellion. 


60  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Cli.  iii.  4. 

For  Joshua  appeared  in  the  vision  of  Zechariah  as  the 
representative  of  Israel,  and  what  was  done  to  him  was  a 
type  of  what  God  purposed  to  do  to  his  people.  The  Ad- 
versary was  rebuked,  because  what  he  desired  to  see  accom- 
plished was  opposed  <^to  the  gracious  purposes  of  Almighty 
love.  Israel  as  a  people  were  not  to  be  abandoned  to  the 
consequences  of  their  sins.  They  were  to  have  an  opportunity 
afforded  them  to  exhibit  the  works  which  were  "meet  "to 
follow  such  an  exhibition  of  Divine  grace  and  love.  The 
priests,  in  the  person  of  Joshua,  were  to  be  exhorted  to  ob- 
serve in  future  the  laws  and  ordinances  of  their  God.  "  For 
the  priest's  lips  should  keep  knowledge,  and  they  should  seek 
the  law  at  his  mouth  :  for  he  is  the  messenger  of  the  Lord  of 
hosts "  (Mai.  ii.  7).  Unfaithfulness  to  their  privileges  and 
blessings  might  indeed  at  last  change  those  blessings  into  a 
curse  (Mai.  ii.  2).  The  close  connection  between  the  warnings 
addressed  to  the  priests  of  Israel  by  the  prophets  Zechariah 
and  Malachi,  and  the  solemn  fact  that  when  the  great 
Messenger  of  the  Covenant  came  unto  his  own,  his  work  was 
opposed  specially  by  the  members  of  that  priesthood,  his 
sacred  person  treated  with  contumely,  and  he  himself  at  last 
delivered  over  to  a  shameful  death,  is  a  point,  however  inter- 
esting, which  can  only  be  glanced  at  here. 

The  vision  of  Zechariah  did  not  close  with  the  rebuke  which 
put  to  shame  the  Adversary  of  Israel.  The  guilt  of  which 
Satan  had  accused  the  high  priest  and  his  nation  had  to  be 
entirely  removed.  Hence,  by  an  exercise  of  Divine  grace, 
the  filthy  garments  were  taken  off  from  the  high  priest,  and  he 
was  clothed  with  a  change  of  raiment.  The  prophet  could 
not  fail  to  see  in  this  action  a  picture  of  God's  pardon  granted 
to  Israel  in  the  person  of  its  high  priest,  or  to  learn  thereby  a 
lesson  of  God's  love  to  an  undeserving  but  ransomed  people. 
The  Angel  of  Jahavch  at  once  commanded  the  ministering 
angels,  who  (whether  visible  or  not)  arc  always  considered  to 


Ch.  iii.  4' S-]  FOURTH   VISION.— JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL.   6l 

be  present  and  ready  to  execute  the  will  of  God,  to  "  take 
away  the  filthy  garments  "  from  Joshua. 

Ewald  understands  by  these  words  that  the  angel  com- 
manded the  ministering  priests  in  attendance  on  the  high 
priest  to  perform  the  required  office.  But  no  such  priests 
were  alluded  to  in  the  vision,  nor  were  priests  always  in 
attendance  on  the  high  priest  of  Israel.  On  the  contrary,  in 
the  most  solemn  function  which  that  high  priest  had  to 
perform,  he  was  quite  unattended.  Alone,  and  clothed  not  in 
his  gorgeous  garments,  but  in  holy  garments  of  plain  white 
linen,  such  as  Joshua  should  have  worn,  the  high  priest 
entered  once  every  year  into  the  holy  place,  as  well  as  into 
the  holiest  of  all  (Lev.  xvi.  17).  ^ 

No  absolute  proof  can,  indeed,  be  given  that  the  word 
rendered  correctly  in  our  Authorised  Version  "  change  of 
raiment,"  indicates  specifically  high-priestly  robes.  The 
exact  word  (JlliJ^nQ)  used  in  this  passage  only  occurs  in  one 
other  place  (Isa.  iii.  22),  though  a  synonyme  from  the  same 
root  ( ilik  vPT )  occurs  elsewhere  in  the  sense  of  "  spoils  " 
stripped  from  the  slain  (Jud.  xiv.  19;  i  Sam.  ii.  21).  The 
word  may  mean  /cstal  robes,  or  robes  of  Jwnoitr ;  it  may  also 
mean  only  change  of  raiment.  The  context  alone  can  decide. 
The  Arabic  equivalent  (^*U.)  is  used  not  only  for  such 
robes  of  honour,  but  also  for  any  garment  which  a  man 
pulls  off  or  takes  off,  from  himself  (see  Lane's  Arab.  Eng. 
Lexicon,  s.  v.).  Nor  has  the  expression  which  occurs  in 
ver.  5,  and  is  rendered  in  our  Authorised  Version,  "  a  fair 
mitre,"   any  necessary    connection  with   the   "  mitre "   worn 

'  Hitzig  notes  that  Ewald  would  refer  the  suffix  in  VJS?,  '^  befo7-e  hiin^''  in 
ver.  8,  to  Joshua.  But  he  rightly  objects  to  this,  because  the  reference  to  the  subject 
ot  jI?M,  "  and  he  answered,"  lies  so  much  nearer,  while  if  the  he  in  p^l,  "  and  he 
answered,^''  is  to  be  regarded  as  referring  to  a  different  person  from  the  him  in 
V3S?j  *'' before  him,^'  the  writer  to  avoid  ambiguity  should  have  written  iJS? 
rjf^n'',  i.e.  *^  before  yoshtia."  But  Hitzig  adds,  somewhat  incongruously,  "when 
one,  who  is  not  expressly  named,  gives  a  command  to  servants,  one  naturally 
expects  that  it  is  to  his  own  servants,  not  to  those  of  others." 


62  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  iii.  'y 

by  the  high  priest.  It  certainly  indicates  more  than  a  mere 
ordinary  turban,  something  more  akin  to  that  worn  by 
princes  and  kings.  ^  At  the  same  time,  when  we  re- 
member that  the  adjective  "fair"  in  ver.  5  ought  rather  to 
be  rendered  "  c/can;  "  that  the  contrast  between  "  filthy  "  and 
"clean  "  is  most  distinctly  seen  in  white  garments  ;  and  that 
the  "  filthy  "  character  of  the  high  priest's  robes  was  the  point 
which  attracted  the  attention  of  the  prophet,  himself  a  priest ; 
we  cannot  resist  the  conviction  that  the  high  priest  was  re- 
presented to  Zechariah  on  this  occasion  as  habited  in  the 
linen  garments  which  were  commanded  to  be  used  on  the  Day 
of  Atonement,  and  that  he  was  conceived  to  be  engaged  in  the 
work  of  making  atonement  for  the  people,  possibly  in  some 
rude  tent  erected  amid  the  ruins  of  the  holy  temple.  In 
visions  or  dreams  no  note  is  taken  of  the  times  and  seasons 
in  which  the  dream  or  vision  may  occur,  and  hence  it  is  no 
objection  to  this  view  that  the  month  in  which  the  priest- 
prophet  saw  his  vision  w^as  not  the  month  in  which  the  Day 
of  Atonement  actually  occurred.  The  gross  impropriety,  both 
morally  and  ceremonially,  of  the  high  priest  being  attired  in 
"  filthy  garments,"  would  under  such  circumstances  be  most 
striking.  The  white  linen  garments  directed  to  be  worn  on 
such  occasions  were  holy  garments  (Lev.  xvi.  4),  and  by  their 
purity  and  whiteness  were  designed  to  represent  "  the  right- 
eousness of  saints"  (Rev.  xix.  8).  The  dress  which  the  high 
priest  wore  on  that  day  indicated  no  superiority  on  his  part 
above  his  fellow  priests  save  as  regards  the  white  turban 
which  he  wore  on  his  head.  For  on  that  linen  mitre,  as  well 
as  on  the  more  gorgeous  mitre  which  he  wore  on  other 
occasions,  the  plate  of  gold  with  the  inscription  "  Holiness  to 

*  See  Job  xxix.  14  where  the  word  (fl''3V)  seems  to  mean  a  diadem,  as  in 
Isa.  Ixii.  3,  where  the  Kcri  has  f]^jy  but  the  text  ^Vi  not  ^ll^y  It  is  however 
used  of  a  head-dress  of  women  in  Isa.  iii.  23,  if  the  word  there  be  not,  as  Fiirst 
thinks,  the  phiral  of  the  fern.  n£''^V. 


Ch.  iii.  5.]     FOURTH   VISION. — JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL.    63 

the  Lord  "  was  directed  to  be  placed  (Exod.  xxviii.  2^,  38,  and 
xxix.  6).  Hence  the  anxiety,  expressed  by  the  priest-prophet 
as  he  gazed  upon  the  vision,  to  behold  the  transformation 
fully  completed  by  the  white  diadem  being  placed  on  the 
brow  of  the  high  priest  of  Israel.  As  Isaiah  was  unable  to 
behold  the  wonders  of  his  vision  without  being  deeply 
affected  by  the  sight,  and  without  expressing  that  feeling  by 
an  exceeding  bitter  cry  (Isa.  vi.  5),  so  Zechariah  was  forced  to 
give  vent  to  the  feelings  pent  up  within  his  heart  (feelings 
so  natural  to  one  of  the  priestly  order) — "  And  I  said,  Let 
them  place  a  clean  mitre  on  his  head." 

In  translating  the  word  in  this  clause  by  "  mitre,"  we,  of 
course,  give  not  only  a  translation  but  an  interpretation.  There 
are  no  real  grounds  to  consider  the  reading  of  the  Hebrew 
text  as  incorrect,  or  to  compel  us,  with  Ewald  and  others, 
to  adopt  the  reading  of  two  MSS.  and  of  the  Vulg.  and  Syr., 
namely,  "  and  he  said,"  in  which  case  the  words  would  have 
to  be  regarded  as  a  command  of  the  angel.^  The  3rd  pers. 
imperfect,  used  in  the  original  ("let  them  place"),  is  pre- 
ferably regarded,  as  Hitzig  observes,  as  expressing  the  wish 
of  the  prophet,  rather  than  as  the  command  of  the  angel 
to  his  subordinates.  Thus  was  the  high  priest  formally 
reinstated  in  God's  favour,  and,  in  his  person,  the  guilt  of 
Israel  was  removed,  and  an  assurance  given  that  the  offspring 
of  Judah  and  Jerusalem  would  be  pleasant  unto  the  Lord  as 
in  the  days  of  old  and  as  in  former  years  (Mai.  iii.  4). 

It  is  rather  fanciful  to  regard  (with  Hitzig,  v.  Hofmann 
and    Pressel)  the  words  rendered  in  our   version,  "  and  the 

^  Von  Hofmann  strangely  imagines  that  the  angel  intended  that  Joshua's  head 
should  remain  for  a  while  without  a  covex"ing,  as  a  crown  was  later  to  be  put 
upon  it  (chap.  vi.  9-15),  but  that  the  prophet,  not  understanding  this,  begged 
that  a  turban  or  mitre  should  be  put  on  it,  which  the  angel  agreed  to  out  of  con- 
descension to  his  weakness.  The  vision  does  not  speak  of  the  exaltation  of  the 
high  priesthood  to  the  royal  dignity  as  foreshadowing  the  kingdom  and  priest- 
hood of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  introduction  of  such  a  thought  here  would 
be  inappropriate. 


64  ZECHARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.        [Ch.  iii.  5-7. 

angel  stood  by,"  to  signify  that,  after  the  high  priest  had  been 
clothed  with  the  "  change  of  raiment,"  and  "the  clean  mitre  " 
had  been  placed  on  his  head,  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh  rose  up 
from  the  judgment  seat,  on  which  he  had  previously  been  sit- 
ting, and  stood,  in  intimation  that  the  trial  was  now  at  an  end. 
The  words  of  the  original  more  naturally  convey  the  meaning 
suggested  in  our  Authorised  Version,  namely,  that,  while  the 
change  was  being  effected  in  Joshua's  appearance,  the  angel 
stood  by,  looking  on  in  token  of  satisfaction  and  approval. 

The  vision  was  brought  to  a  close  by  a  solemn  adjuration 
addressed  to  Joshua  by  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh,  which  con- 
tains a  prophecy  of  future  events,  The  high  priest  was 
solemnly  adjured  to  walk  in  the  way  of  the  Lord  and  to  keep 
his  testimonies.  He  was  assured  that  if  he  did  so  the  Lord 
would  grant  to  him  the  right  to  judge  his  house,  and  to  guard 
his  courts  ;  while  a  further  blessing  was  also  promised,  into 
the  meaning  of  which  we  shall  presently  inquire. 

The  accent  which  usually  divides  the  two  principal  parts  of 
a  verse  in  the  Hebrew  text  is  placed  on  "my  courts."  Kimchi, 
Dathe  and  von  Hofmann,  accordingly  make  the  apodosis  to 
begin  with  "  I  will  give  thee,  etc."  But  the  Hebrew  accentu- 
ation would  be  the  same  even  if  with  Ewald  and  the  great 
majority  of  modern  critics,  we  consider  our  Authorised  Ver- 
sion to  be  correct,  which  makes  the  apodosis  of  the  verse  to 
commence  with  the  words  "then  thou  shalt  also  judge  my 
house."  This  latter  construction  is  most  agreeable  to  the 
laws  of  Hebrew  syntax,  and  to  the  context  of  the  passage  (see 
crit.  comm.).  Satan's  accusation  was  brought  forward  in 
order  that  Joshua  and  his  fellows,  as  being  polluted,  might 
be  put  away  from  the  priesthood.  The  angel  having  commu- 
nicated to  the  high  priest  the  Divine  absolution,  and  having  in 
token  thereof  clothed  him  with  a  complete  change  of  raiment, 
confirmed  him  and  his  fclknvs  in  their  sacerdotal  offices  on 
the  simple  condition  of  obedience  for  the  future. 


Ch.  iii.  7.]     FOURTH  VISION— JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL.      65 

The  words  "  my  house,"  in  ver.  7,  seem  to  have  been  chosen 
to  correspond  with  "  my  courts "  in  the  parallel  clause. 
Though  the  two  ideas  are  closely  related,  they  are  not 
identical  in  meaning.  The  expression  "  my  house,"  is  prob- 
ably to  be  understood  in  a  metaphorical  sense  for  ^^iny  peopW" 
(comp.  Num.  xii.  7  ;  Jer.  xii.  7  ;  Hos.  viii.  i,  ix.  15),  because  the 
verb  judge  (l^)  takes  an  accusative  after  it  of  the  person 
and  not  of  the  thing,  with  the  exception  of  an  accusative  of 
cognate  meaning,  as  "to  judge  judgment"  (Jer.  v.  28,  xxx. 
13,  and  xxi.  12.  The  word  "house"  may  possibly  have 
been  chosen  in  preference  to  that  of  "  people,"  to  avoid  giving 
oftence,  as  the  people  were  then  under  the  Persian  rule 
(Schegg).  If  the  word  house  be  understood  metaphorically, 
the  sense  is  that  the  high  priest  was  to  direct  the  people  in 
all  things  respecting  the  law  of  God,  and  especially  to  judge 
those  who  ministered  in  the  sanctuary  (Hitzig,  Pressel,  etc.). 
Others  think  that  the  temple  then  in  course  of  construc- 
tion is  referred  to  (Hengstenberg,  Keil,  Kliefoth,  Pusey). 
In  the  latter  case  the  meaning  is  not  very  different,  namely, 
that  the  high  priest  was  to  rule  and  direct  the  services  of  the 
sanctuary  and  holy  of  holies,  and  to  keep  away  every  kind 
of  idolatry  and  ungodliness  from  its  outer  courts  (Hengsten- 
berg). 

There  is  no  little  variety  of  opinion  as  to  the  translation 
and  meaning  of  the  last  promise  contained  in  verse  7.  This 
is  not  the  place  to  enter  into  any  critical  discussion  as  to 
the  translation  of  the  disputed  word  (see  crit.  comm.).  But 
it  must  be  noted  that  the  passage  has  been  rendered  by 
Gesenius,  Hengstenberg,  etc.,  "  I  will  give  thee  leaders  among 
those  that  stand  by."  The  promise  would  in  this  case  mean 
that  the  Lord  would  grant  angel-guards  to  Joshua  and  the 
other  priests,  to  defend  and  protect  them  from  the  dangers  to 
which  they  were  exposed.  Something,  however,  more  definite 
than  such  a  promise  of  general  protection  would  naturally  be 

F 


66  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  iii.  7. 

expected  here.  Independently  of  other  difficulties,  the  ob- 
jection of  Hitzig,  to  wit,  that  the  word  bctn'ctii  can  scarcely- 
mean  "  out  of  the  number  of,"  seems  fatal  to  this  interpreta- 
tion.^ The  word  can  only  fairly  be  rendered  "  walks,"  "  ways." 
It  has  been  explained  by  the  Targumist  (followed  by  Drusius 
and  others)  to  mean  that  Joshua  after  the  resurrection  should, 
as  the  reward  of  faithfulness  in  his  office  on  earth,  walk 
among  the  seraphim  above  in  heaven.  Dr.  Pusey  seems  to 
adopt  this  view."  But  the  promise  of  the  angel  seems  rather 
to  be  one  the  accomplishment  of  which  was  to  be  looked  for 
in  this  world ;  and  a  reward  after  death  does  not  well  suit 
the  context.  The  meaning  is  rather,  as  Hitzig  explains  it, 
"I  will  give  thee  walks  (i  Sam.  xviii.  16;  i  Kings  iii.  7,  xv. 
17)  among  the  angels,"  so  that  thou  shalt  enter  freely  unto 
God  as  his  high  priest  (Deut.  x.  8  ;  Jud.  xx.  18  ;  2  Chron. 
xxix.  11),  even  between  them  that  stand  in  God's  immediate 
presence  (r  Kings  xxii.  19).  This  does  not  mean,  as  Hitzig 
imagines,  that,  in  the  restored  commonwealth  of  Israel,  the 
priests  should  have  the  rank  of  angels,  an  idea  not  supported 
by  his  references  (Mai.  ii.  7  ;  and  Hag.  i.  13).  The  expres- 
sion rather  signifies  that  "  open  ways,"  "  free  ingress  and 
egress  "  to  Jahaveh  himself,  would  be  afforded,  even  through 
the  midst  of  the  angels  which  stood  directly  before  God's 
throne — so  that  the  high  priest  Joshua,  like  his  predecessors 
in  happier  days,  would  be  able  to  bring  his  petitions  and 
requests  on  behalf  of  Israel  directly  before  God. 

Such  is  the  interpretation  of  the  words  which  would  have 
suggested  itself  to  the  Jews,  to  whom  the  prophet  first  nar- 

'  Von  Ilofmann's  translation  "ioalke7-s"  by  which  he  thinks  the  angels  constantly 
plying  between  Jahaveh  and  his  priests  are  signified,  is  open  to  as  grave  objections, 
and  even  were  the  translation  itself  correct,  the  meaning  v.  Ilofniann  puts  on  it 
would  not  necessarily  follow. 

^  He  remarks,  however,  that  "  even  in  this  life,  since  '  our  conversation  is  in 
heaven'  (Phil.  iii.  20),  and  the  life  of  priests  should  be  an  angel-life,  it  may  mean, 
that  he  should  have  free  access  to  God,  his  soul  in  heaven,  while  his  body  was  on 
this  earth." 


Ch.  iii.  S.]     FOURTH  VISION — JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL.      6/ 

rated  the  vision.  The  words,  however,  bear  a  still  deeper 
signification.  The  thought  must  have  occurred  to  those 
Israelites  who  pondered  over  the  meaning  of  the  vision,  that 
if  sin  had  indeed  separated  them  from  their  God,  if  it  was 
so  defiling  in  its  nature  as  to  expose  the  high  priest  in 
the  discharge  of  his  most  solemn  functions  to  the  just  accu- 
sations of  Satan  (from  the  consequences  of  which  the  high 
priest  had  been  delivered  only  by  a  marvellous  exhibition  of 
Divine  grace),  there  was  no  security  at  all  that  the  door  of 
access  to  God  would  remain  always  open.  They  might  well 
reason  that,  if  free  access  to  a  throne  of  grace  was  to  be 
granted  only  on  the  due  performance  of  the  conditions  laid 
down  by  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh,  there  was  but  little  real  con- 
solation in  the  vision,  and  much  to  arouse  the  gravest  appre- 
hensions for  the  future.  They  would  naturally  explain  the 
passage,  in  the  light  of  the  closing  words  of  verse  9,  as  referring 
to  some  future  atonement,  whereby  the  iniquity  of  Israel 
would  in  reality  be  removed,  and  a  secure  access  be  for 
ever  opened  to  the  Divine  throne. 

To  rightly  understand  the  clauses  that  follow  in  verse  8, 
the  point  must  be  insisted  on  that  the  words  were  addressed 
to  Joshua  the  high  priest  alone,  and  not  to  other  priests  sup- 
posed to  be  present.  The  verb  "  hear  "  is  in  the  singular,  a  fact 
not  indeed  in  itself  conclusive,  but  which  is  of  importance, 
when  coupled  with  the  use  of  the  third  person  plural  in  the 
next  clause  (which  is  also  not  absolutely  conclusive),  and 
when  compared  with  the  statements  of  verse  7,  in  which 
only  the  high  priest  is  mentioned.  If  the  other  priests 
had  been  seen  in  the  vision,  they,  as  well  as  the  high  priest, 
should  have  been  in  some  way  represented  as  "  defiled  with 
iniquity."  For  they,  like  their  chief,  were  symbolical  person- 
ages, and  the  filthy  garments  which  he  wore  did  not,  as  we 
have  seen,  indicate  merely  his  personal  transgressions. 

No  valid  argument  can  be  built  on  the  use  of  the  expres- 


68  ZECHARIAH    AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  iii.  8. 

sion,  "  those  that  sit  before  thee,"  in  proof  of  the  notion  that 
the  friends  and  colleagues  of  the  high  priest  were  represented 
in  the  vision  as  actually  present,  and  that  they  were  also 
addressed  by  the  angel.  The  words  do  not  indeed  exclude 
such  an  interpretation  (comp.  Gen.  xliii.  33  ;  2  Sam.  vii.  18  ; 
I  Chron.  xvii.  16  ;  Jud.  xx.  26),  but  they  can  be  otherwise 
explained.  The  phrase  does  not  seem  to  point  to  any 
committee  formed  for  the  sake  of  temple  restoration,  of 
which  the  high  priest  was  president.  It  indicates  those 
priests,  who  in  the  discharge  of  their  office  often  sat  before 
the  high  priest  to  receive  his  directions,  and  sat  with  him 
in  the  frequent  councils  of  the  priests  held  in  matters  affecting 
their  ofifice  and  religion  (see  Lightfoot,  Hor.  Heb.  on  Matt, 
xxvi.  3).  The  expression  is  used  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets 
who  put  themselves  under  the  directions  of  Elisha  (2  Kings 
iv.  38,  vi.  i),  and  of  the  elders  of  Israel  who  often  came  to 
converse  with  and  receive  instruction  from  the  prophet 
Ezekiel.^ 

The  settlement  of  this  point  will  lead  us  to  a  right  con- 
clusion as  regards  the  special  import  of  the  address  of  the 
angel.  In  it  we  must  note  the  force  of  the  expression  "  men 
of  portent  "  or  "men  of  a  sign."  The  rendering  of  our  Author- 
ised Version,  "men  to  be  wondered  at,"  is  ambiguous,  and  might 
be  explained  to  denote  that  the  deliverance  of  Joshua  and  his 
fellows  from  Babylon  might  well  create  wonder  and  astonish- 
ment. The  translation  might  also  convey  the  idea  of  Luther, 
that  the  men  were  so  termed,  inasmuch  as  all  who  really 
embrace  religion  are  an  astonishment  and  wonder  to  the 
world.  But  such  interpretations  can  scarcely  be  judged  satis- 
factory. Just  as  unsatisfactor)',  however,  is  the  view  of 
Ewald  and  Hitzig,  who  maintain  that  the  expression  used 
indicates  that  the  presence  of  those  priests  as  witnesses  of 

'  Ezck.  viii.  r,  xiv.  i,  xx.  i,  xxxiii.  31.  Probably  this,  as  Rosenmiiller  thinks, 
may  be  the  meaning  of  tlic  phrase  in  Isa.  xxiii.  18. 


Ch.  iii.  S.]     FOURTH  VISION— JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL.      69 

the  promise  of  the  angel  was  a  sign  of  its  certain  fulfihnent. 
Ewald  thinks  it  meant  that,  as  surely  as  the  priests  had  stood 
there  and  heard  the  angel's  words,  the  Messiah  should  come. 
The  priests  should  by  their  very  existence  point  forward  to 
this  great  future  hope.  But  why  (we  may  ask  with  Pressel) 
should  the  fact  of  the  priests  standing  there  (if  the  priests 
were  actually  represented  as  present,  for  that  is  assumed 
throughout)  have  such  a  peculiar  significance  .''  If  the  angel 
simply  meant  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  of  the  priests  being 
witnesses  to  the  promise,  why  should  he  have  used  such  a 
peculiar  expression  .-'  And  is  not  an  allusion  to  witnesses  in 
a  vision  peculiarly  incongruous  ? 

The  word  rendered  "  wonder,"  "  miracle,"  ought  to  be  here 
translated  a  si£-;i,  a  portent,  a  type  of  future  events.  Thus 
Isaiah  and  his  children  (Isa.  viii.  18)  were  spoken  of  "  as 
signs  and  portents  in  Israel,"  and  the  high  priest  and  his 
fellows  were  such,  as  being  persons  who  in  some  way 
shadowed  forth  future  events  (Gesenius).  This  they  did  by 
virtue  of  their  priestly  office,  especially  the  high  priest,  as 
the  special  duty  of  the  priests  was  to  make  atonement  for 
transgression  (Hengstenberg,  Kohler,  etc.).  The  atonement 
by  means  of  "  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  "  could  not  be 
more  than  symbolical;  it  was  a  typical,  not  a  real  reconciliation. 
The  sacerdotal  office  kept  up  in  Israel  the  remembrance 
of  sin  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  expectation  of  pardon  on 
the  other.  It  pointed  to  a  pressing  need,  and  created  a 
longing  for  the  supply  of  that  necessity. 

Nor  is  this  all.  We  are  justified  in  considering  (with 
Kliefoth  and  Keil)  that  there  is  also  a  reference  made  here  to 
the  previous  incidents  of  the  vision.  It  was  in  reference  to 
them  that  Joshua  and  his  fellow  priests  were  styled  "  men  of 
portent,"  or  "  men  of  a  sign."  The  vision  had  pictured  to  the 
eye  of  the  priest-prophet  the  manner  in  which  the  priesthood 
of  Israel,  represented  by  Joshua,  though  defiled  with  iniquity, 


70  ZECIIARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  iii.  8. 

had  been  cleansed  by  Divine  grace  and  rendered  acceptable 
to  God.  By  that  grace  priests  and  people  had  been  snatched 
like  half-burnt  brands  from  the  fire  of  a  well-deserved  punish- 
ment. That  deliverance  was,  however,  typical  of  a  greater 
salvation,  which  the  angel  was  now  about  to  reveal.  Hence 
Joshua  and  his  fellows  were  typical  men.  What  had  been 
done  to  them  in  the  vision  pointed  to  "  things  to  come." 

For  the  reasons  already  noticed,  which  can  be  supported  by 
critical  arguments,  the  passage  is  best  rendered,  "  Hear  now, 
Joshua  the  high  priest,  thou  and  thy  companions  {^^y"!})  which 
sit  before  thee,  verily  they  arc  men  of  portent — for  lo!  I  am 
bringing  forth  my  servant  Branch.  For  lo  !  the  stone  which 
I  have  placed  before  Joshua,  upon  one  stone  are  seven  eyes  ; 
lo  !  I  am  graving  its  graving,  and  I  will  remove  (proph.  perf.) 
the  iniquity  of  this  land  in  one  day." 

It  is  satisfactory  that  the  critics  of  the  modern  school  co- 
incide with  the  majority  of  the  ancient  interpreters  in  referring 
the  term  "  Branch  "  to  the  expected  Messiah.  The  name 
"Branch  "  (HD^i)  is  used  by  Zechariah  as  a  proper  name.  It 
first  occurs  in  reference  to  the  Messiah  in  Isaiah  (iv.  2),  "  In 
that  day  shall  the  Branch  of  (mn^  HQ^)  Jahavch  be  beautiful 
and  glorious  for  them  that  are  escaped  of  Israel."  The 
same  idea  (though  the  words  are  different)  recurs  in  Isa.  xi.  i, 
where  the  Messiah  is  described  as  the  rod  ("I^H)  which  was 
to  come  from  the  trunk  of  the  tree  of  Jesse,  and  the  shoot 
(l^iil)  which  was  to  spring  up  from  its  roots.  From  the 
former  passage  of  Isaiah  Jeremiah  no  doubt  derived  the 
term,  when  he  prophesied  that  the  days  should  come  when 
"Jahaveh  shall  raise  up  unto  David  a  righteous  Branch  (niD!i 
pniS),  and  a  king  shall  reign  and  prosper,  and  shall  execute 
justice  and  judgment  in  the  earth.  In  his  days  Judah  shall 
be  saved,  and  Israel  shall  dwell  safely,  and  this  is  the  name 
whereby  he  shall  be  called,  Jahaveh  our  Righteousness" 
(Jer.  xxiii.    5).     The  same  title  of  the  Messiah  is  repeated  by 


Ch.  iii.  8,  9.]     FOURTH  VISION — JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL.   7 1 

Jeremiah  in  a  later  chapter  (xxxiii.  15) :  "  In  these  days  and 
in  that  time  I  will  cause  to  branch  unto  David  a  branch  of 
righteousness  (Uplii  HOit  IVO  T]''i^)ii^),  and  he  shall  do  judg- 
ment and  righteousness  in  the  earth." 

The  title  "  my  servant "  is  also  borrowed  from  the  earlier 
prophets,  and  specially  refers  to  the  great  prophecy  of  "  the 
servant  of  Jahaveh  "  in  the  latter  part  of  Isaiah  ;  and  the 
words  "my  servant  Branch"  (HQII  ^"^^Jl?)  may  be  a  remi- 
niscence of  the  expression  in  Ezekiel,  "my  servant  David" 

("^n  ^^^^'  ^^^^-  XXX vii.  24.) 

The  last  words  in  the  address  of  the  angel,  namely,  "  I  will 
remove  the  iniquity  of  the  land  in  one  day,"  clearly  refer  to 
the  work  of  the  Messiah.  As  the  section  begins  (verse  8)  with 
a  distinct  promise  of  the  Messiah's  coming,  and  closes  (verse  10) 
with  a  statement  of  the  result  of  that  coming  to  Israel,  it  is 
only  natural  to  view  the  middle  portion  as  having  reference  to 
the  same  event. 

The  passage  in  verse  9,  which  speaks  of  the  stone  laid 
before  Joshua,  has,  therefore,  been  correctly  explained  by  many 
of  the  Church  Fathers,  and  by  the  Reformers,  to  refer  to  the 
Messiah  as  the  foundation  stone  of  the  eternal  temple,  upon 
whom  the  hopes  of  an  everlasting  peace  depended.  So  also 
Kliefoth  and  Pressel. 

It  is  probable  that  at  this  stage  of  the  vision  a  stone  was 
actually  seen  by  the  prophet  lying  at  the  feet  of  the  high 
priest,  most  likely  the  foundation  stone  of  the  second  temple, 
which  had  been  laid  years  before  (Ezra  iii.  8-13).  Though 
we  cannot  credit  all  that  is  said  about  this  stone  by  the 
Rabbis,  it  is  clear  that  it  must  have  been  a  stone  of  consider- 
able size  and  importance.  According  to  the  Talmud  (Tract. 
Yoma,  V.  2),  this  stone  took  the  place  of  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  in  the  first  temple,  and  Maimonides  asserts  that 
it  was  that  on  which  the  ark  rested  in  that  temple,  and 
before  which  the  pot  of  manna  and  Aaron's  rod  were  de- 


72  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  iii.  9. 

posited.  It  is  further  stated  that  upon  this  stone,  which 
stood  iji  the  holy  of  hoHes  in  the  second  temple,  as  the  ark 
of  the  covenant  was  wanting,  the  blood  of  atonement  was 
duly  sprinkled,  and  upon  it  the  high  priest  placed  the  burning 
censer  with  which  he  entered  into  that  most  holy  place. 
Whatever  absurdities  there  may  be  in  the  other  legends  re- 
garding it,  there  is  nothing  improbable  in  this.  Amid  the  ruins 
of  the  ancient  temple,  the  Jewish  builders,  engaged  in  rearing 
the  second  temple,  would  naturally  look  out  for  some  impor- 
tant stone  of  the  first  to  use  as  the  foundation  stone  of  the 
second.  And  what  more  likely  than  that  they  should  have 
chosen  a  mighty  block  from  the  ruins  of  the  holy  of  holies 
for  that  purpose  ?  According  to  Jewish  tradition,  that  stone 
was  visible  in  the  holy  of  holies,  where  it  rose  about  three 
fingers'  breadth  above  the  level  of  the  pavement. 

These  traditions  (wfiich  are  given  in  greater  extent  by 
March)  are  not  only  interesting  in  themselves,  but  prob- 
ably are  historically  correct  ;  though  of  course  they  cannot 
be  made  the  basis  of  any  positive  argument. 

That  the  stone  laid  in  vision  before  Joshua  represented  the 
jewels  belonging  to  the  high  priest's  breastplate  (the  Urim 
and  Thummim),  or  even  some  single  precious  stone  which 
supplied  the  place  of  the  jewels  that  were  lost  (Baumgarten), 
appears  altogether  fanciful.  The  stone  can  scaixely  typify  the 
people  of  Israel  who  were  to  be  the  foundation  of  the  new 
order  of  things  (as  Schegg,  Kohler,  Keil  think).  Nor  does  the 
view  of  Hengstenberg  commend  itself  to  our  judgment, 
according  to  which  the  stone  represents  the  kingdom  or 
people  of  God,  outwardly  insignificant  when  compared  with 
the  great  mountain  (chap.  iv.  7),  which  symbolizes  the  power 
of  the  world.  That  the  stone  here  represents  the  entire 
collection  of  materials  required  for  the  erection  of  the  temple 
(as  von  Hofmann,  Weis.undErf.,  i.  p.  341;  Stalielin,  Mess. 
Weiss.,  pp.  1 19-120)  can  scarcely  be  reconciled  with  the  precise 


Ch.  iii.  9.]     FOU'RTH  VISION — JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL.      73 

expression  used  in  verse  9,  "  one  stone"  (nPIJ^  pi^"7i^).  Von 
Hofmann  altered  his  opinion  in  his  Schriftbeweis  (ii.,  i,  p.  363), 
in  which  he  considers  that  special  reference  is  made  to  the 
stone  in  the  holy  of  holies,  which  took  the  place  of  the 
ark  of  the  covenant  in  the  second  temple. 

The  stone  seen  in  the  vision  seems  to  have  been  the 
foundation-stone  of  the  temple,  which  typified  the  Messiah, 
who  in  the  writings  of  "  the  former  prophets  "  (chap.  i.  4), 
with  which  Zechariah  was  well  acquainted,  was  set  forth 
under  such  symbols.  Thus  the  Psalmist  says  that  "  the 
stone  which  the  builders  refused  is  become  the  head  of  the 
corner"  (Ps.  cxviii.  22).  And  Isaiah  (chap,  xxviii.  16)  says, 
"Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  for  a  foundation  a  stone,  a  tried  stone, 
a  corner  stone,  a  sure  foundation."  Such  passages  make  it 
easy,  without  doing  any  violence  to  the  language  of  the 
prophet,  to  understand  the  Messiah  to  be  here  referred  to ;  an 
idea  supported  by  those  passages  of  the  New  Testament  in 
which  the  Messiah  is  set  forth  as  a  stone,  a  foundation,  and 
believers  as  living  stones  built  up  on  him  (Matt.  xvi.  18, 
xxi.  42  ;   I  Cor.  iii.  11  ;  Eph.  ii.  20-22  ;   i  Pet.  ii.  4,  5). 

Ewald  considers  that  this  stone  (on  which,  he  thinks,  seven 
eyes  were  actually  engraved)  was  the  stone  destined  to  crown 
the  edifice  of  the  finished  temple,  and  that  the  seven  eyes 
represented  the  seven  highest  spirits  (Rev.  i.  4).  The  stone 
was  "  a  wonder-stone,  towards  which  the  whole  Divine  care 
and  love,  as  well  as  all  the  seven  spirits  or  eyes  of  Jahaveh 
were  directed,  and,  therefore,  the  seven  eyes  were  engraven 
thereon  as  a  token  of  the  fact." 

The  expression,  "  upon  one  stone  shall  be  seven  eyes," 
may  mean  (with  Ew^ald)  that  seven  eyes  were  actually  en- 
graved upon  the  stone,  or  that  the  seven  eyes  of  God  rested 
upon  it,  i.e.,  were  directed  towards  it  to  watch  and  protect  it. 
Comp.  I  Kings  viii.  29.  If  the  stone  be  supposed  to  symbo- 
lize the    Messiah,    the  sense  of  the  passage  would  be,  that 


74  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  iii.  9. 

God's  watchful  providential  care  would  so  guard  his  Servant 
that  he  would  be  manifested  in  due  time.  The  Divine  power 
would  protect  that  stone  and  the  quarry  in  which  it  lay 
hidden  until  the  time  came  to  cut  it  out,  without  human 
instrumentality,  and  shape  it  so  that  it  would  become  the 
foundation-stone  of  his  Church  and  people. 

According  to  the  translation  which  supposes  the  seven  eyes 
themselves  to  have  been  seen  upon  the  stone,  the  significa- 
tion might  almost  be  the  same.     For  the  seven  eyes  on  the 
stone  might  indicate  that  the  stone  on  which  they  were  drawn 
or  engraved  was  under  the  care  of  those  seven  eyes,  which 
in  the    next   vision    are   represented  as    running  to  and  fro 
throughout  the  whole  earth.     This  appears  to  be  the  meaning 
which  Ewald  puts  on  the  passage,  and  it  is  not  unlikely  to 
have  been  the  view  which  the  Jews  of  the  prophet's  day 
would  have  taken.     So  far  as  it  goes,  this  interpretation  would 
be  correct.     On  the  other  hand,  with  New  Testament  guid- 
ance, we  cannot  avoid  thinking  of   a  deeper  meaning,  and 
regarding  the  stone  with  the  seven  eyes  as  a  stone  anointed 
with  the  sevenfold  spirit  of  Jahavch,  whose  seven  powers  are 
mentioned  in  Isa.  xi.  2.^     Klicfoth  explains  the  eyes  on  the 
stone  to  mean,  that  through  him  whom  the  stone  signified  all 
the  operations  of  the  Spirit  of  God  would  be  carried  on  from 
the  day  on  which  that  stone  should  be  laid  as  the  foundation 
of  his  Church.     If,  however,  we  are  to  interpret  the  passage 
according  to  New  Testament  ideas,  we  prefer  to  compare  the 
statement  in  the  Evangelist  St.  John,  "  God  giveth  not  his 
Spirit  by  measure  unto  him;"  which  truth  seems  indicated  by 
the  appearance  of  the  Lamb  in  the  book  of  the  Revelation, 
with    the    seven    horns    and    the  seven  eyes,   which  arc    the 
spirits  of  God  sent  forth  into  all  the  earth  (Rev.  v.  6). 

Keil  thinks  that  the  opinion  that  "  the  seven  c}'cs  "  were 

'  Sec  Dclitzsch's  remarks  on  that  passage  in  Iiis  Coniin.  un  Isaiali,  ami   particu- 
larly in  his  System  of  Biblical  Psychology. 


Ch.  iii.  9.]     FOURTH  VISION — JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL.      75 

actually  beheld  in  the  vision  on  the  stone  itself,  is  opposed  to 
the  statement  which  follows :  "  I  will  engrave  (or  I  am 
graving)  the  graving  thereof"  For  the  phrase  in  the  original 
does  not  indicate  a  fact  that  had  taken  place,  but  rather  one 
that  was  to  take  place  in  the  future.  The  objection,  however, 
is  not  valid.  For  though  the  stone  is  represented  in  the 
vision  as  already  laid,  yet  the  Messiah  represented  by  it  was 
yet  to  come.  And  though  for  the  purposes  of  symbolical 
representation  it  might  have  been  seen  with  the  seven  eyes 
actually  engraved  on  it,  the  fact  intended  by  that  symbol  was 
still  future,  and  the  language  in  question  may  well  refer  to 
that  future  fact. 

.  We  pass  over  in  silence  many  strange  interpretations  given 
to  the  sentence  just  referred  to  (but  see  crit.  comm.),  especially 
as  the  translation  already  given  is  that  approved  by  the 
great  majority  of  modern  critics.  In  the  picture  presented  to 
the  prophet,  the  "  seven  eyes "  were  probably  seen  by  him 
drawn  upon  the  rough  surface  of  the  stone,  but  not  as  yet  cut 
or  engraved.  Hence  the  phrase,  "  I  will  grave  the  graving 
thereof,"  may  retain  in  all  respects  its  natural  meaning.  The 
words  can  scarcely  mean  that  the  rough  stone  would  be  cut 
into  a  beautiful  and  precious  stone  (Keil).  They  rather  indicate 
some  distinct  inscription  or  carving  cut  into  the  stone  itself. 
No  inscription  can,  however,  be  here  signified,  and  the  carving 
can  only  be  that  of  "  the  seven  eyes  "  cut  into  the  stone.  The 
mention  made  of  the  graving  of  the  stone  is  devoid  of  mean- 
ing, if  the  translation,  "  upon  one  stone  are  seven  eyes 
directed,"  be  accepted,  and  this  seems  conclusive  in  favour  of  the 
idea  that  "  the  seven  eyes  "  were  represented  in  the  vision  as 
drawn  upon  the  stone  itself  placed  before  Joshua,  the  cutting 
or  carving  out  of  which  was  to  be  executed  at  a  future  period 
by  the  Divine  power. 

Pressel  has  noted,  that  in  the  case  of  a  foundation-stone, 
ornamentation  (even  if  that  idea  could  be  conveyed  by  the 


'j6  ZECHARlAIi   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  iii.  9. 

phrase)  is  a  matter  of  secondary  importance.  But  upon  such 
stones  certain  marks  are  often  wont  to  be  made,  indicating 
either  the  name  of  the  builder  or  the  object  of  the  structure 
about  to  be  built  thereon.  The  foundation-stone  of  the 
second  temple,  which,  as  the  Talmud  informs  us,  was  some 
inches  higher  than  the  level  of  the  holy  of  holies,  had  also 
according  to  that  authority  inscribed  on  it  the  sacred  Tetra- 
grammaton  or  the  four  letters  of  the  name  Jahaveh  (mn''). 
Christ,  who  was  the  true  foundation-stone  of  the  spiritual 
temple,  received  by  Divine  command  the  name  "  Jesus," 
which  name  indicated  the  great  work  he  came  to  perform, 
and  for  which  he  was  anointed  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
with  power  (Acts  x.  38).  The  full  meaning  of  that  name  no 
one  knew  but  himself  {Rev.  xix.  12).  But  he  felt  its  full 
significance  when  he  said,  "  I  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to 
do  my  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  and  this  is  the 
will  of  him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the  Son, 
and  bclicveth  on  him,  may  have  everlasting  life ;  and  I  will 
raise  him  up  at  the  last  day  "  (John  vi.  38,  40). 

The  laying  of  this  stone,  and  the  manifestation  of  the 
Messiah  prefigured  thereby,  were  to  result  in  the  removal  of 
the  iniquity  of  the  land  for  ever.  "  And  I  will  take  away  the 
iniquity  of  this  land  in  one  day."  ^ 

The  "  one  day,"  on  which  such  emphasis  is  here  laid,  is 

most  easily  explained  as  identical  with  the  "once"  (e^aTra^) 

so   often   emphasized   in   the    ICpistlc  to  the   Hebrews   (Ilcb. 

1  Kohler  rc<jards  the  stone  as  sitjnifying  Israel,  which  nation  was  intrusted  to 
the  care  of  the  high  priest  Joshua,  that  by  the  due  discharge  of  his  high-priestly 
office,  the  purity  and  freedom  from  iniquity  required  by  God  should  be  attained 
by  the  people.  He  consequently  regards  the  engraving  of  the  stone  to  mean 
tliat  God  would  himself  shape  and  form  Israel  into  that  form  and  character, 
which  by  nature  did  not  belong  to  that  nation,  inasmuch  as  it  was  rather  like 
an  unshapen  stone.  By  the  grace  of  God  alone  could  the  nation  become  pleasing 
in  his  sight,  but  this  would  be  brought  about  by  the  coming  of  tlie  Messiah. 
The  expression  respecting  the  removal  of  iniquity  in  one  day  Kohler,  with  v.  Ilof- 
mann,  regards  as  meaning  that  this  removal  of  transgi-ession,  and  this  condition 
pleasing  to  God,  would  be  granted  in  one  and  the  self-same  day  or  time. 


Ch.  iii.  9,  lo.]    FOURTH  VISION — JOSHUA  BEFORE  THE  ANGEL.   'JJ 

vii.  27,  ix.  12,  X.  10).  It  signifies  that  the  atonement  for  sin, 
to  be  made  by  the  Messiah,  was  to  be  an  atonement,  not 
Hke  that  made  by  the  priests  under  the  Mosaic  law,  which 
needed  to  be  repeated  year  by  year,  but  an  atonement 
which  was  to  be  performed  once  for  all.  The  day  on  which 
that  great  result  was  achieved  was  "  the  day  of  Golgotha," 
when  the  iniquity  of  the  land  was  removed  by  that  "  full, 
perfect,  and  sufficient  sacrifice,"  offered  by  Christ  on  the  cross. 
(So  substantially,  Hengstenberg,  Kliefoth,  Reincke,  etc.) 

That  "  this  land,"  spoken  of  by  the  prophet,  primarily  in- 
dicates the  land  of  Israel  or  Judah,  ought  not  to  be  doubted 
in  presence  of  the  demonstrative  pronoun  (i^'^nil"  V"1NrT).  But 
mention  had  been  made  of  many  nations  in  Messianic  days 
who  should  be  joined  to  the  God  of  Israel  (chap.  ii.  15). 
Their  land  would,  therefore,  become  Jahaveh's  land,  as  dwelt 
in  by  his  people.  Hence  the  passage  (whatever  may  be 
its  primary  signification)  may  be  understood  to  have  a 
reference  to  the  whole  earth  (the  Hebrew  word  which  here 
we  variously  translate  land  and  earth  being  identical).  It  is 
one  of  those  far-reaching  expressions  which  have  a  meaning 
far  beyond  what  they  were  originally  conceived  to  bear.  As 
referring  in  a  primary  sense  to  the  land  of  Israel,  the  passage 
may  be  regarded  as  in  some  respects  similar  to  that  in  Heb. 
ii.  16,  in  which  the  recovery  of  the  Abrahamic  race  is  spoken 
of  as  presenting  a  striking  contrast  to  the  fact  that  the  angels 
who  fell  did  not  recover  from  their  apostasy ;  although  it 
was  very  far  from  being  the  intention  of  the  writer  of  that 
Epistle  (as  may  be  seen  from  many  other  passages)  to  confine 
the  results  of  Christ's  work  to  the  limits  of  the  race  of 
Israel. 

We  are  told  in  the  Talmud  (Yoma,  vii.  4)  that  when,  on 
the  great  Day  of  Atonement,  the  high  priest  had  performed 
the  various  duties  of  that  solemn  day,  he  was  escorted  home 
in   a  festive  manner,   and  was  accustomed  to  give  a    festal 


78  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  iii.  lo. 

entertainment  to  his  friends.  The  maidens  and  youths  of  the 
people  went  forth  to  their  gardens  and  vineyards  with  songs 
and  dances ;  social  entertainments  took  place  on  all  sides, 
and  universal  gladness  closed  the  festival  of  that  solemn  day. 
And  thus  in  the  last  verse  of  this  chapter  a  picture  is  given 
of  a  day  of  similar  gladness  and  joy  of  heart,  when,  on 
account  of  sin  being  pardoned,  free  access  to  God's  throne 
granted,  and  the  Deliverer  having  come  anointed  with  the 
plenitude  of  the  Spirit  and  sealed  by  God  the  Father,  each 
true  Israelite  would  invite  his  friends  as  joyful  guests  to 
partake  of  festal  cheer  under  his  own  vine  and  fig  tree.  The 
days  of  peace  once  more  are  seen.  The  glorious  era  of  the 
earthly  Solomon  has  indeed  returned  in  greater  splendour 
under  the  reign  of  the  Prince  of  Peace.  "  Paradise  lost " 
has  become  "  Paradise  regained."  "  Being  justified  by  faith 
we  have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ," 
and  "  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God  "  (Rom.  v.  i,  2). 


CHAPTER    III. 


THE    FIFTH    VISION— THE    GOLDEN   CANDLESTICK. 


CHAPTER    III. 


The  vision  of  the  golden  candlestick,  8i — Formed  on  the  basis  of  the  candlestick 
of  the  Tabernacle,  8i — The  candlestick  in  the  Temple,  82 — That  on  arch  of 
Titus,  82 — Differences  between  the  candlesticks  of  Moses  and  that  seen  in  the 
vision,  83 — Importance  of  vision  for  the  restored  Jews,  85 — Significance  of  the 
candlestick  in  the  Tabernacle  and  Temple,  85,  87 — The  bowl  or  reser\'oir,  83 
— The  pipes,  83 — The  olive  trees,  84,  91 — The  two  channels  or  pipes  of  ver.  12, 
84,  85 — The  three  parts  of  the  worship  in  the  Holy  Place,  86 — Their  signifi- 
cance, 86 — The  lighting  of  the  lamps,  87 — ^Views  of  Kliefoth  and  Keil,  87 — 
Remarkable  features  of  the  candlestick  of  the  vision,  83,  88 — Significance  of 
the  candlestick,  87,  88 — Meaning  of  the  olive  trees,  88  ff. — Reference  to  the 
days  of  the  prophet,  88 — Zerubbabel  and  Joshua,  90 — Note  on  Mr.  S.  R. 
Bosanquet's  interpretation,  90 — The  two  fruitful  boughs  of  the  two  olive  trees, 
91 — Israel  and  the  Gentiles,  91,  92 — Full  significance  of  the  vision,  92 — 
Believing  Jews  and  Gentiles  the  two  olive  branches,  93 — Messianic  days,  93— 
Zechariah  and  Malachi,  94 — Address  of  interpreting  angel,  94 — Zerubbabel 
encouraged,  95 — The  levelling  of  the  mountain,  95j^Views  of  Pressel,  Ewald 
and  Hitzig,  95,  96 — Mountains  overturned.  Matt.  x.\i.  21,  96 — The  completion 
of  the  second  temple,  97 — Different  translations  of  verse  10,  97 — Objections  to 
Ewald's  rendering,  98 — Hitzig's  translation,  98 — The  day  of  small  things,  99— 
Objections  met,  99 — The  glory  of  the  second  temple,  100 — Conclusion,  Icx). 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   FIFTH   VISION — THE   GOLDEN    CANDLESTICK. 

The  fifth  of  the  remarkable  visions  which  the  prophet  saw  on 
the  twenty-fourth  day  of  the  eleventh  month  was  that  of  the 
golden  candlestick.i  The  candlestick  beheld  by  him  in  vision 
was  the  holy  candlestick  belonging  to  the  tabernacle  of 
Moses,  which  was  formed  of  pure  gold.  This  is  the  most 
natural  deduction  from  the  use  of  the  term  "the  candlestick 
with  its  seven  lamps,"  -  as  the  pronoun  seems  to  refer  to 
something  well  known. 

The  seven-branched  candlestick  of  the  Mosaic  tabernacle 
was  clearly  the  basis  of  that  seen  in  the  vision,  though  the 
candlestick  described  by  Zechariah  had  certain  features  over 
and  above  those  which  distinguished  the  candlestick  of  the 
sanctuary.  These  peculiar  features  are  set  forth  in  the  vision 
related  in  the  fourth  chapter.  The  features  common  to  both 
are  for  the  most  part  passed  over  in  the  description,  as  such 
were  well  known  to  the  persons  for  whom  the  vision  Avas 
primarily   designed.      Hence    no    mention    is    made    of   the 

'  The  expression  used  in  the  opening  of  the  fourth  chapter,  "And  the  angel 
that  talked  with  me  came  again,"  or  "  returned,"  has  been  explained  to  signify 
that  the  interpreting  angel,  represented  in  the  third  vision  as  having  gone  forth, 
now  for  the  first  time  returned  to  the  prophet  (Pressel).  According  to  this  idea  the 
Angel  of  Jahaveh  is  supposed  to  have  exhibited  the  fourth  vision  to  the  prophet. 
The  supposition  is,  however,  unnecessary,  as  the  phrase  used  in  the  Hebrew  often 
betokens  to  do  again,  and  might  in  union  with  the  next  verb  signify,  "  He  again 
aroused  me,  just  as  one  is  aroused  from  sleep  "  (Rosenmiiller),  for  the  prophet 
after  the  last  vision  seems  to  have  fallen  into  a  deep  slumber. 

2  Kohler's  translation,  "And  seven  were  the  number  of  its  lamps  which  were 
upon  it,"  is  scarcely  defensible.  For  Hitzig's  suggested  emendation  see  crft. 
comm. 


82  ZECIIARIAII    AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  iv.  2. 

seven  arms  upon  the  top  of  whicli  the  seven  lamps  of  the 
Mosaic  candlestick  used  to  be  placed,  though  these  arms  must 
not  be  supposed  as  wanting  in  the  vision.  For  there  is  no  ne- 
cessity to  suppose  (with  Kohler)  that  the  pipes  which  supplied 
the  oil,  and  which  led  from  a  reservoir  above  the  lamps,  took 
the  place  of  those  branches  or  arms.  Still  less  can  we  sup- 
pose that  the  vision  represented  a  hanging  chandelier. 

The  place  of  the  seven-branched  candlestick  of  the  Mosaic 
tabernacle  was  supplied  in  the  temple  of  Solomon  by  ten 
candlesticks  similar  in  form.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the 
ten  made  by  Solomon  may  have  been  additional  to  that  one 
originally  made  by  Bezaleel  and  Aholiab  for  the  use  of  the 
Mosaic  tabernacle.  Some,  if  not  all,  of  these  candlesticks 
were  carried  away  to  Babylon  (Jcr.  lii.  19).  No  mention  of 
them  is  made  among  the  holy  vessels  stated  to  have  been 
brought  back.  In  the  second  temple  there  seems  to  have 
been  only  one  such  (i  Mace.  i.  21,  iv.  49,  50;  Jos.  Antiq. 
xiv.  4,  §  4),  which,  though  similar  in  its  general  form  and 
outlines  to  the  candlestick  of  the  Mosaic  tabernacle,  was  not 
(if  the  sculpture  on  the  Arch  of  Titus  can  be  relied  on)  by  any 
means  identical  with  it,  nor  with  those  made  under  Solomon's 
directions.  For  the  griffins,  which  arc  represented  on  the 
base  of  that  pictured  on  the  Arch  of  Titus,  are  plain!)'  sug- 
gestive of  a  foreign  origin.^ 

If  the  holy  candlestick  did  not  form  the  basis  of  the 
vision  of  Zcchariah,  it  would  be  impossible  to  form  any  idea 
as  to  the  main  features  of  the  appearance  exhibited  to  the 
prophet's  view.  Assuming  as  a  fact  that,  on  the  \\-hole,  the 
main  features  of  both  cantllcsticks  were  alike  (and  this  is  the 
most  natural  way  to  explain  the  expression   referred  to),  the 

^  There  is  no  proof  that  the  candlestick  of  tlie  tabernacle  had  a  reservoir  for  oil 
under  the  lights,  as  Pressel  seems  to  think.  The  lamps  of  that  candlestick  seem 
to  have  been  separate  lamps,  placed  on  the  tops  of  the  seven  branches,  and 
supplied  with  oil  by  the  priests  from  some  oil  vessels,  which  formed  no  portion 
whatever  of  the  apparatus  connected  with  the  candlestick  itself. 


Ch.  iv.  2.]    FIFTH   VISION — THE   GOLDEN   CANDLESTICK.  8^ 

new  features  peculiar  to  that  seen  in  the  vision  require 
special  notice. 

The  reservoir  belonging  to  the  candlestick  in  Zechariah's 
vision  was  not,  as  in  that  of  the  tabernacle,  entirely  distinct 
from  the  candlestick,  but  was  united  with  it  so  as  to  form  a 
part  of  the  candlestick  itself.  This  reservoir  was  above,  not 
below,  the  lamps,  and  from  it  pipes  were  conveyed  to  the 
several  lamps.  The  number  of  these  pipes  is  a  matter 
concerning  which  there  is  considerable  difference  of  opinion, 
owing  to  an  ambiguity  in  the  original.  Our  Authorised 
Version  makes  the  total  number  only  seven,  in  which  case 
each  lamp  would  have  had  only  a  single  pipe.  The  LXX. 
and  Vulg.  give  some  support  to  this  idea,  though  they 
translate  the  word  by  pitcJicrs  instead  of  pipes.  The  trans- 
lation of  our  A.  v.,  "  and  seven  pipes  to  the  seven  lamps," 
agrees  with  the  emended  text  as  proposed  by  Hitzig  and 
Ewald.  The  Hebrew  as  it  stands  cannot  be  so  translated. 
Our  marginal  rendering  is  more  correct,  i.e.,  "seven  several 
pipes  to  the  lamps."  The  text  has  also  been  rendered  by 
eminent  scholars,  "seven  and  seven  pipes  for  the  lamps  upon 
the  top  of  it,"  in  which  case  each  lamp  had  two  pipes 
attached  to  it  (see  crit.  comm.).  In  either  case  the  number 
of  the  pipes  simply  indicates  the  large  supply  of  oil  afforded. 

Whatever  the  number  of  pipes  may  have  been,  they 
connected  the  reservoir  of  oil  with  the  lamps,  which  were 
attached  to  the  upper  portion  of  the  seven  branches,  so  that 
the  reservoir  or  bowl,  the  lamps,  the  pipes,  and  the  branches 
or  arms,  all  formed  essential  parts  of  the  golden  candlestick. 

The  reservoir,  or  bowl  above  the  candlestick,  was  supplied 
with  oil  without  any  need  of  the  ministration  of  the  priests. 
In  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  the  priests  had  daily  to  trim  the 
lamps,  and  to  supply  them  with  oil.  They  had  also  to  take 
care  that  the  oil  was  duly  provided  for  by  the  offerings  of  the 
concfregation.     But  on  the  risht  and  the  left  of  the  golden 


84 


ZECHARIAH   AND    IIIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  iv.  1-3. 


candlestick  in   Zechariah's  vision^  stood  two  wonderful  olive 
trees,   on   which  were  two   fruit-bearing  branches,   from    the 

'  In  the  woodcut  given  above,  the  reservoir  or  bowl  (?5.  n?5)  is  repre- 
sented (marked  i)  as  above  the  candlestick  (nt^'NT^r)  verse  2.  The  two  chan- 
nels (miTOV))  verse  12,  are  marked  2,  2.  By  these  the  two  fniilful  branches 
discharged  their  oil  (termed  "the  gold"  in  verse  12,  see  crit.  comm. )  into  the 
bowl,  and  thence  to  the  several  lamps.  These  channels  cannot  jiossibly  be 
identified  with  the  seven,  fourteen,  or  forty-nine  pipes  (mpyiD,  verse  2),  marked 
respectively  by  the  number  4,  which  pipes  conveyed  tlie  oil  directly  to  the  seven 
lamps  (verse  2)  marked  severally  in  our  woodcut  by  the  figure  5,  which  lamps  were 
placed  upon  the  candlestick.  It  may  be  a  matter  of  doubt  wlietlier  the  lamps 
should  be  considered  as  forming  an  inseparable  part  of  the  candlestick  itself,  or  as 
simply  placed  upon  it  (verse  2).  Only  two  fruit-l)earing  brandies  are  mentioned 
in  verse  12  as  belonging  to  the  two  olive  trees.     These  are  marked  severally  by  the 


Ch.  iv.  1-3.]    FIFTH   VISION — THE   GOLDEN   CANDLESTICK.      85 

ends  of  which  the  olives  discharged  their  oil  into  two  channels 
(so  we  provisionally  render  the  word),  whose  form  and 
appearance  cannot  be  ascertained,  but  from  which  the  golden 
oil  was  conveyed  to  the  bowl  or  reservoir,  and  thence 
passed  through  the  pipes  to  the  several  lamps. 

Such  is  the  description  of  the  candlestick  presented  in 
the  vision.  It  is  obvious  that  there  is  a  close  connection 
between  this  vision  and  the  work  of  the  rebuilding  of  the 
temple  spoken  of  in  this  chapter.  For  the  vision  speaks  of 
the  ultimate  accomplishment  of  that  work,  "  not  by  might, 
nor  by  power,  but  by  my  Spirit,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts."  It 
does  not,  however,  necessarily  follow  that  the  rebuilding  of 
the  temple  was  all  that  was  prefigured  thereby,  though  its 
restoration  was  essential  for  the  due  observance  of  the  com- 
mandments of  the  Mosaic  law.  For  the  temple  itself  was 
in  some  respects  a  candlestick  on  which  the  lamp  of  the 
Jewish  Church  was  lifted  up  to  give  light  unto  the  world. 

The  candlestick  in  the  tabernacle,  with  its  lamps  lighted 
every  evening,  and  kept  burning  all  night  through  in  the 
sanctuary,  represented  the  spiritual  light  exhibited  by  the 
congregation  or  people  of  the  Lord.  The  people  of  God  in 
the  old  dispensation,  as  well  as  under  the  new,  were  the  light 
of  the  world  (Matt.  v.  14),  and  were  bound  to  let  their  light 
shine  before  men  (Matt.  v.  16  ;  comp.  Mark  iv.  21,  22),  The 
lamps  of  the  people  of  God  should  have  been  ever  kept 
trimmed  and  burning  (Luke  xii.  35),  inasmuch  as  they  were 
indeed  to  shine  as  lights  in  the  world  (Phil.  ii.  15).  In  the 
book  of  the  Revelation  the  seven  golden  candlesticks  thus 

numerals  3,  3.  As  the  candlestick  seen  in  the  vision  was  the  candlestick  of  the 
Mosaic  tabernacle  (see  above),  it  has  been  depicted  in  our  woodcut  according  to 
the  description  given  in  Exod.  xxv.  31  ff.,  and  not  after  the  model  on  the  Arch  of 
Titus.  The  exact  form  of  the  base  of  the  candlestick  of  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  is 
a  matter  of  uncertainty.  The  olive  trees  on  the  right  and  the  left  of  the  candle- 
stick, which  have  been  drawn  true  to  nature,  have  been  placed  a  little  in  the 
background,  inasmuch  as  the  candlestick  itself  formed  the  chief  object  that  was 
seen. 


85  ZECIIARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.        [Ch.  iv.  1-3. 

represented  the  seven  Churches  (Rev.  i.  20),  and  an  un- 
faithful Church  is  warned  that  its  candlestick  might  be 
removed  out  of  its  place  (Rev.  ii.  5). 

The  candlestick  seen  by  the  prophet  in  his  vision  must 
have  had  the  same  general  significance  as  the  candlestick  of 
the  tabernacle.  But  the  peculiarities  of  Zechariah's  candle- 
stick need  to  be  carefully  observed,  for  these  peculiarities 
give  the  key  to  the  right  understanding  of  the  vision. 

In  order  to  understand  what  these  peculiarities  signif}',  we 
must  consider  precisely  the  meaning  of  the  candlestick  in  the 
Mosaic  tabernacle.  The  service  performed  in  the  holy  place 
was  designed,  as  Kliefoth  has  observed,  to  represent  the 
worship  rendered  to  God  by  a  people  whose  sins  were 
pardoned,  and  who  were  rendered  holy  in  his  sight.  In  the 
outer  courts  of  the  tabernacle  sacrifices  for  sin  were  offered 
up,  and  atonement  was  made  by  shedding  the  blood  of  the 
various  victims  enjoined  by  the  law.  In  connection  with 
these  sacrifices  of  blood,  unbloody  sacrifices  were  offered, 
which  consisted  of  offerings  of  flour,  oil,  and  frankincense, 
in  various  preparations.  The  flour  denoted  the  food  neces- 
sary for  man's  life  and  sustenance  ;  the  oil  and  frankincense 
were  emblems,  the  former  of  holiness,  the  latter  of  devotion 
as  expressed  by  prayer.  These  were  the  three  portions  of 
which  the  ordinary  viinchali,  or  unbloody  offering,  was  com- 
posed. The  bread,  oil,  and  incense,  all  reappear  in  the 
things  offered  unto  God  by  the  priests  in  the  holy  place.  In 
that  sanctuary  the  shewbread  was  placed  upon  the  holy  table, 
the  incense  was  burned  upon  the  golden  altar,  and  the  oil 
used  to  feed  the  lamps  of  the  seven-branched  candlestick. 
All  these  things  were  provided  from  the  offerings  of  the 
congregation,  and  in  making  use  of  these  offerings  in  tiie 
service  of  the  holy  place,  the  priests  acted  as  the  chosen 
representatives  of  the  priestly  people. 

Kliefoth   maintains  that  there   was   an   essential  difference 


Ch.  iv.  1-3.J    FIFTH  VISION — THE  GOLDEN  CANDLESTICK.  Sy 

between  the  oil  which  was  used  for  the  lamps,  and  that  which 
was  used  for  anointing.  He  maintains  that  the  oil  used  in 
the  lamps  represented  the  offering  made  by  man  to  God, 
which  was  unacceptable  until  it  was  kindled  with  holy 
sacrificial  fire,  while  the  oil  used  for  anointing  was  a  symbol 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  itself  Keil  has  shown  clearly  that  no 
such  distinction  really  existed  {see  crit.  comm.  chap.  iv.  14). 
Kliefoth  is  not,  therefore,  justified  in  laying  stress  upon  the 
point  that  the  lamps  were  lighted  with  fire  from  off  the  altar 
of  burnt-offering,  as  if  the  use  of  that  fire  had  some  spe- 
cial symbolical  significance.  It  is  nowhere  distinctly  stated 
that  the  lamps  of  the  golden  candlestick  were  lighted  with 
that  fire.  But  on  the  other  hand  Keil  may  go  too  far  in 
maintaining  that  the  source  from  which  the  light  was  to  be 
obtained  was  left  absolutely  undetermined.  It  is  more  in 
accordance  with  analogy  to  suppose  that  all  the  fire  used 
for  sacred  purposes  was  obtained  from  the  holy  fire  which 
was  kept  constantly  burning  on  the  altar  of  burnt  offering. 
That,  however,  which  can  only  be  conjectured  from  general 
inference,  and  cannot  be  distinctly  proved  from  Holy  Writ, 
ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  having  a  symbolical  meaning. 
In  such  matters  imagination  is  not  a  safe  guide. 

The  candlestick  in  the  tabernacle  of  Moses  and  those 
used  in  the  temple  of  Solomon  represented  the  light  of 
Divine  truth  as  shed  abroad  by  the  congregation  of  the 
Lord's  people.  The  Church,  purified  by  Divine  grace  by 
means  of  the  sacrifices  which  were  offered  up  on  the  brazen 
altar,  symbolically  rendered  unto  God  in  the  sanctuary,  as 
a  thank-offering  to  the  Giver  of  all,  the  sacrifice  of  good 
works,  by  which  alone  his  glory  could  be  spread  abroad  by 
his  people  through  the  world. 

Under  the  arrangements  of  the  Mosaic  law  an  outward 
sanctuary  was  needed  for  this  special  purpose,  where  the 
sacrifices  of  blood  could  first  be  offered^  and  where  the  other 


S8  ZECIIARIAII    AND   HIS    rROPIIECIKS.      [Cli.  iv.  i-;„  14. 

offerings,  which  were  more  or  less  "sacrifices  of  thanksgiving," 
might  also  be  presented  to  God.  The  intervention  of  offi- 
ciating priests  was  necessary  for  both  purposes.  Only  through 
their  ministry,  and  mediation  with  God,  could  the  Church  of 
the  old  law  render  due  worship  unto  Jahavch. 

It  was  one  of  the  remarkable  features  connected  with  the 
candlestick  of  Zcchariah's  vision,  that  it  was  not  seen  stand- 
ing in  a  "worldly  sanctuary"  (Heb.  ix.  i).  No  priests  were 
seen  trimming  its  lamps,  or  pouring  in  the  oil,  as  required 
by  the  Mosaic  law.  The  oil  which  supplied  the  lamps 
seen  in  the  vision,  flowed  directly  from  two  fruit-bearing 
branches  of  two  olive  trees  which  stood  on  the  right  and 
left  of  the  candlestick.  In  explaining  the  general  signifi- 
cance of  the  vision,  the  angel  spoke  only  of  difficulties  over- 
come, and  of  the  completion  of  the  temple-building,  "  Not  b\' 
might,  nor  by  power,  but  by  my  Spirit,  saitli  the  Lord  of 
hosts." 

What  then  was  the  natural  interpretation  which  the  priest- 
prophet  would  have  placed  upon  such  a  vision  .''  The  signifi- 
cance of  the  candlestick  of  the  Mosaic  sanctuary  must  needs 
have  recurred  to  his  mind.  If  that  candlestick  had  been 
simply  regarded  by  him  to  represent  God's  providence, 
what  could  the  olive  trees  have  meant  ?  And  why  the 
explanatory  words,  "  These  are  the  two  sons  of  oil  which 
stand  before  the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth  .-'  "  Those  words 
evidently  point  to  some  persons  or  communities  who  in 
reality  ministered  as  servants  to  Jahaveh,  and  supplied  the  oil 
which  fed  the  seven  lamps  of  the  golden  candlestick. 

With  the  preceding  visions  in  his  recollection,  and  espe- 
cially the  fourth,  whicli  represented  the  purification  of  the 
priesthood  and  people,  Zechariah  could  scarcely  fail  to 
observe  that  the  vision  meant  something  in  advance  of  that 
presented  by  the  last.  In  the  candlestick  the  priest-prophet 
could  scarcely  fail  to  see  a  picture,  in  some  wa)'  or  other,  of 


Ch.  iv.  1-3.]     FIFTH    VISION— THE   GOLDEN    CANDLESTICK.      89 

the  light  of  holy  actions  reflected  by  the  people  of  God,  once 
more  exhibited  amid  the  darkness  which  covered  the  earth 
and  the  gross  darkness  which  enveloped  the  peoples  (Isa.  Ix.  2). 
He  could  hardly  fail  to  note  the  absence  of  ministering 
priests.  He  could  scarcely  forget  that,  in  connection  with  a 
former  vision,  mention  had  been  made  of  the  coming  of  *'  the 
servant  of  Jahaveh,"  the  "Branch,"  oriMessiah.  His  contem- 
porary Haggai  had  spoken  of  the  day  when  all  nations  should 
bring  gifts  to  the  sanctuary.  Among  those  gifts,  one  imbued 
with  Mosaic  ideas  would  needs  think  of  the  bread,  the 
incense,  the  oil,  which  would  there  be  presented,  if  "  many 
nations  "  were  indeed  to  become  the  people  of  Jahaveh,  as  had 
been  pointed  out  in  the  third  vision.  Was  it  not  natural  that 
the  prophet  would  interpret  the  vision  of  the  golden  candle- 
stick as  representing  in  some  way  the  future  glory  of  the 
Church,  in  which  glory  Israel  according  to  the  old  covenant, 
and  the  nations  according  to  a  new  covenant,  should  both 
share  .'' 

Many  expressions  found  in  the  sacred  writings  might  help 
to  explain  to  him  the  meaning  of  the  olive  trees  seen  in 
the  vision.  Such  as,  for  instance,  the  saying  of  the  Psalmist, 
"I  am  like  a  green  olive  tree"  (Ps.  lii.  10),  or  the  contrast 
spoken  of  in  the  book  of  Job  (xv.  33),  where  it  is  said  that  the 
ungodly  man  "shall  shake  off  his  unripe  grape  as  the  vine, 
and  shall  cast  off  his  flower  as  the  olive."  In  the  writings  of 
"  the  former  prophets,"  Israel  is  compared  to  a  "  green  olive 
tree,  fair,  and  of  goodly  fruit"  (Jer.  xi.  16;  Isa.  xvii.  6, 
xxiv.  13  ;  Hosea  xiv.  7,  verse  6  in  English  version).  With 
such  passages  in  his  recollection,  Zechariah  could  scarcely 
have  failed  to  comprehend  that  the  supply  of  oil  for  the 
lights  of  the  candlestick,  provided  by  the  olive  trees  in  the 
vision,  corresponded  to  the  supply  of  oil  furnished  for  the 
candlestick  of  the  tabernacle  by  the  congregation.  The  two 
olive  trees  would  naturally  be  explained  by  him  as  signifying 


90  ZECIIARIAII    AM)    HIS    rUOI'IIKCIES.        [Ch.  iv.  1-3. 

the  two  leaders  who  had  taken  such  a  deep  interest  in  the 
re-establishment  of  the  Jewish  ci\nl  and  ecclesiastical  polity, 
to  wit,  Zcrubbabcl,  the  civil  head  of  the  State  and  govern- 
ment, and  Joshua,  the  hiLjli  priest,  and  chief  ruler  of  the 
Church.  ^ 

This  has  been  the  interpretation  put  upon  this  passage  by 
many  able  commentators,  and  that  which  would  most  readily 
have  been    assigned  to  it  in  the  days   of  Zechariah.     This 

'  The  following  is  a  specimen  of  the  exegesis  and  criticism,  popular  in  some 
quarters,  which  has  too  often  brought  discredit  upon  evangelical  interpretation  in  this 
country.  It  is  from  Mr.  S.  R.  Bosanquet's  book  on  "The  Prophecies  of  Zechariah 
Interpreted  and  Applied  "  (London  :  Ilatchards,  1877).  He  seems  to  believe  he 
has  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit  for  his  interpretations.  Thus  he  states  in  his 
Introduction,  p.  6,  "  I  believe  in  myself  that  I  have  still  higher  warrant."  The 
remarks  within  brackets  in  the  following  extract  are  of  course  our  own.  "Zerubba- 
bel  here  represents  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  Joshua  represented  Jesus  Christ  in  the  last 
chapter  [chap.  iii.].  The  word  of  the  Lord  to  Zerubbabel  is  'by  my  Spirit.'  The 
plummet  in  the  hand  of  Zerubbabel,  to  make  the  Church  upright  and  perfect,  is 
'  those  seven  '  graces  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  name  Zerubbabel  seems  to  signify 
'the  fiery  one  of  God'  [!].  Zain  (T)  and  Tsadde  (V)  are  cognate  letters,  and 
often  [very  rarely]  interchanged  ;  and  Tzerub  [which  occurs  nowhere]  Gesenius 
says  [where?]  is  cognate  with  'Seraph' — a  fiery  one.  And  the  Holy  Ghost  de- 
scended upon  the  heads  of  the  apostles  in  tongues  of  fire.  '  El '  ends  the  name,  as 
so  many  other  Hebrew  names.  Often  the  spelling  of  names  does  not  exactly  preserve 
the  spelling  of  their  etymology.  A  change  is  made  in  the  parts  to  form  them  into 
a  euphonious  word.  Though  'tz,'  as  an  initial,  is  preserved  in  'Tzadok,'  yet 
'  Zerublmbel '  may  have  been  used  for  euphony  and  convenience  in  place  of 
'  Tzerubbabel.'  It  is  not  at  all  likely  that  the  name  of  a  Jew  of  the  royal  family 
should  be  compounded  of  '  Babel '  because  he  was  born  at  Babylon."  He  then 
seeks  to  account  for  the  omission  of  the  X  of  the  word  ?X,  God,  on  the  ground 
that  the  S  is  "omitted  and  contracted  on  account  of  the  length  and  form  of  the 
name,"  and  closes  his  remarks  thus  :  "The  whole  name  then  signifies,  '  the  fire  of 
God  the  Father  '— Zerub-bab-el.  '  Bab,'  in  Pehlevi,— a  Persian  dialect  [a  Persian 
word  in  the  middle  of  a  Hebrew  name  !]  with  which  the  learned  Jews  may  have 
become  familiar  in  Babylonia, — signifies  'father'  (Gesenius  in  ^32).  But  in  effect 
it  is  a  reduplication  of  the  '  b,'  as  the  S  is  omitted  in  the  last  syllable,  for 
euphony.  The  pronunciation  is  shortened,  not  lengthened  by  it."  Criticisms 
and  interpretations  like  this  quite  justify  our  taking  no  further  notice  of  this 
writer.  While  he  seems  to  imagine  himself  under  some  special  Divine  guidance 
as  far  as  regards  his  own  writings,  he  does  not  hesitate  to  condemn  "  the  selected 
revisers  of  our  English  version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  the  commissioned 
commentators  of  the  Speaker's  Bible,"  "several  of  them  at  least"  as  "of  very 
questionable  belief,"  and  "little,  if  any,  less  than  semi-infidels"  (Introd.  p.  3), 
and  he  considers  it  "wonderful  that  a  Christian  divine,  as  McCaul,  should  have 
thought  David  Kimchi's  connnentary  worthy  of  translation  "  (Introd.  p.  4). 


Ch.  iv.  1-3.]     FIFTH   VISION — THE   GOLDEN   CANDLESTICK.      9I 

explanation  does  not,  however,  exhaust  the  meaning,  but 
rather  contains  the  germ  of  a  still  wider  interpretation. 
Zerubbabel  and  Joshua  were  of  importance,  not  so  much 
as  individuals,  but  as  representative  men,  the  former  the 
representative  of  the  body  of  the  people  in  general,  the  latter 
of  the  priests  and  Levites.  Zerubbabel  had  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  the  State,  Joshua  to  perform  the  services  of  the 
Church.  Both  Church  and  State  were  alike  to  contribute 
their  quota  to  the  oil  required  for  the  holy  lamps.  And  the 
Jewish  Church  and  State  were  themselves  symbolical  ot 
something  higher. 

It  will  not  have  escaped  notice  that  the  olive  trees  were  not 
represented  as  richly  furnished  with  fruit-bearing  boughs, 
but  as  having  each  one  fruitful  bough,  whence  the  oil  was 
derived.  This  feature  does  not  seem  capable  of  any  satisfac- 
tory explanation,  when  the  passage  is  confined  to  the  indi- 
viduals Zerubbabel  and  Joshua.  It  must,  no  doubt,  be 
remembered  that  fruit-bearing  trees  have  branches  which 
bear  fruit,  and  others  which  do  not  bear  fruit.  But  this 
common  fact  is  not  sufficient  to  explain  that  in  the  vision 
one  branch  only  of  each  tree  was  fruitful.  If  the  vision,  how- 
ever, be  considered  to  refer  to  the  members  of  the  State  and 
the  priesthood  in  general,  the  two  fruit-bearing  branches  of 
the  two  olive  trees  might  be  explained  as  indicating  those 
members  of  each  estate,  who  by  their  good  works  contributed 
in  any  way  to  manifest  light  to  the  glory  and  praise  of  God. 

The  people  of  Israel  stood  to  the  nations  of  the  world  in  a 
somewhat  similar  relation  to  that  in  which  the  tribe  of  Levi 
stood  to  the  whole  family  of  Israel.  To  the  tribe  of  Levi 
were  intrusted  the  ordinances  relating  to  the  worship  of  God. 
The  priests  and  Levites  acted  in  holy  things,  not  only  as 
representatives  of  the  people,  but  also  in  some  respects  as 
mediators  for  them  with  God.  In  the  same  way,  "  Israel  after 
the  flesh  "  was  the  priestly  nation,  as  compared  with  the  other 


92  ZECIIARIAH    AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  iv.  1-3. 

nations  of  the  vvorkl.  In  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  to  them  be- 
longed "  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and 
the  giving  of  the  kiw  and  the  promises,  whose  are  the  fathers, 
and  of  whom  as  concerning  the  flesh  Christ  came  "  (Rom.  ix. 
4,  5) ;  and  we  may  add,  to  whom  belonged  also  the  prophets, 
the  apostles,  and  the  writers  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

When  the  prophets  depict  the  Gentiles  as  brought  into 
covenant  with  the  God  of  Israel,  they  generally  represent  them 
as  holding  a  position  different  from  that  occupied  by  Israel. 
The  Gentiles  are  represented  either  as  ministering  to  the  needs 
of  the  ancient  people  of  the  covenant,  or  as  acting  in  the  posi- 
tion in  which  the  ideal  State  stands  to  the  ideal  Church.  Thus, 
in  the  latter  part  of  Isaiah,  the  Gentiles  arc  spoken  of  in  this 
manner  :  "  They  shall  bring  thy  sons  in  their  arms,  and  thy 
daughters  shall  be  carried  upon  their  shoulders  ;  and  kings 
shall  be  thy  nursing  fathers  and  queens  thy  nursing  mothers  " 
(Isa.  xlix.  22,  23).  "And  the  sons  of  strangers  shall  build  up  thy 
walls,  and  their  kings  shall  minister  unto  thee.  .  .  .  For 
the  nation  and  kingdom  that  will  not  serve  thee  shall  perish, 
yea  those  nations  shall  be  utterly  wasted"  (Isa.  Ix.  10,  12),  It 
was,  too,  in  thus  ministering  to  Israel,  and  assisting  to  spread 
abroad  in  all  lands  the  doctrines  of  the  prophets  and  apostles, 
and  of  that  Messiah,  whom  the  prophets  predicted,  and  to 
whom  the  apostles  bore  witness,  that  the  members  of  the 
Gentile  Church  first  experienced  the  fulfilment  of  the  pre- 
diction concerning  themselves,  "  I  will  also  take  of  them  for 
priests  and  for  Lcvites,  saith  the  Lord  "  (Isa.  Ixvi.  21).' 

In  the  light  of  these  statements  of  the  prophets,  concerning 
the  future  entrance  of  the  Gentiles  into  the  Church  of  God^ 
and  of  the  allusions  made  to  the  same  fact  in  the  former 
visions  of  Zechariah,   the  vision    before   us   cannot  be    taken 

'  See  Delitzsch's  remarks  in  his  Comment,  on  Isaiah,  on  this  latter  passage, 
which  has  sometimes  been  erroneously  explained  to  refer  to  the  restored  Israelites. 
See  also  on  this  text  Curtiss'  Levitical  Priests,  p.  130,  aiul  p.  205  IT. 


Ch.  iv.  1-3,  II-I4-]     FIFTH   VISION — GOLDEN   CANDLESTICK.     93 

merely  to  represent  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua,  whose  united 
efforts  to  procure  the  restoration  of  the  Jewish  State  and 
temple  were  so  important  at  that  time  to  the  restored  Jewish 
colony.  It  had  no  doubt  in  the  first  place  a  special  reference 
to  those  leaders  of  the  people.  But  the  prophecy  reached 
farther  than  to  them.  Nor  did  it  merely  depict  the  Jewish 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  authorities  of  later  days  in  their  re- 
lation to  the  Jewish  Church.  The  prophetic  vision  reached 
forward  to  Messianic  days,  and,  as  was  correctly  seen  by 
Cyrill  of  Alexandria,  represented  the  Jews  and  Gentiles 
jointly  aiding  and  sustaining  the  light  of  truth.  Kliefoth 
has,  therefore,  rightly  regarded  the  two  olive  trees  to  re- 
present Israel  and  the  Gentile  Church.  The  true  believers 
in  each  portion  are  represented  by  the  two  fruit-bearing 
branches  on  the  two  distinct  olive  trees.  St.  Paul,  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  represents  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  under 
the  same  figure  of  two  olive  trees  (Rom.  xi.  17,  24),  though  he 
represents  the  latter  as  a  "wild  olive."  The  same  idea  is 
probably  conveyed  in  the  book  of  the  Revelation  (xi.  4), 
where,  in  language,  plainly  borrowed  from  Zechariah's  vision, 
the  two  witnesses,  who  may,  perhaps,  symbolize  the  Jewish 
and  Gentile  believers,  faithful  to  truth  amid  the  apostasy 
in  the  outward  Church  which  is  there  predicted,  are  repre- 
sented as  "the  two  olive  trees  and  the  two  candlesticks 
standing  before  the  God  of  the  earth." 

The  vision  thus  prefigures,  indeed,  the  realization  of  the 
great  objects  which  the  pious  Jews  of  Zechariah's  time  had  so 
much  at  heart,  the  completion  of  the  temple  building  and  the 
restoration  of  the  temple  worship.  But  it  also  looks  forward 
to  a  better  era,  when  by  reason  of  the  atonement  achieved  by 
him  who  is  called  "  Branch,"  "  the  Branch  of  the  Lord,"  "the 
Servant  of  Jahaveh,"  both  Jew  and  Gentile  alike  should  be 
redeemed,  and  should  no  longer  worship  in  a  confined  sanc- 
tuary,   but  in  the  wide    sanctuary   of  the   earth.      Jew   and 


94  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  iv.  6. 

Gentile  together  would  worship  him  who  is  a  spirit  "  in  spirit 
and  in  truth,"  standing  alike  before  God  as  kings  and  priests, 
presenting  their  bodies  as  living  sacrifices,  holy,  acceptable 
unto  God,  which  is  their  reasonable  service  (Rom.  xii.  lo), 
holding  forth  the  light  of  truth  to  the  world.  The  vision  of 
Zechariah  (as  Kliefoth  has  observed)  teaches  the  same  truth 
in  different  language,  which  is  set  forth  by  the  prophet  Malachi 
at  a  somewhat  later  period.  In  the  prophecy  of  the  latter 
prophet,  however,  instead  of  the  candlesticks  of  the  holy 
place  being  referred  to,  allusion  is  made  to  the  offering  up 
of  the  incense  and  to  the  presentation  of  the  viinchah,  or 
bloodless  offering,  both  of  which  had  to  be  presented  in  the 
sanctuary.  "  For  from  the  rising  up  of  the  sun  even  unto 
the  going  down  of  the  same  my  name  shall  be  great  among 
the  nations  ;  and  in  every  place  incense  shall  be  offered  unto 
my  name,  and  a  pure  offering ;  for  my  name  shall  be  great 
among  the  nations,  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts  "  (Mai.  i.  ii). 

With  this  general  view  of  the  object  of  the  vision  itself,  we 
turn  to  consider  the  cheering  words  of  Jahaveh  communicated 
by  the  interpreting  angel  to  Zechariah,  in  order  that  he 
might  in  turn  encourage  Zerubbabel  and  his  fellow  workers 
in  the  prosecution  of  their  work  on  the  temple  of  the  Lord. 

The  interpreting  angel  bid  the  prophet  in  effect  observe 
that  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  really  belonged  to  the  Lord 
and  that  he  was  the  governor  among  the  nations  (Ps.  xxii.  29, 
ver.  28  in  the  English  version).  The  cxUcs  of  Judah  would 
be  successful  if  they  followed  the  commandments  of  their 
God.  The  Spirit  of  God  had  raised  up  from  among  the 
people  two  prophets,  one  of  them  at  least  belonging  to  the 
priestly  order,  in  order  that  thcpeoplc  might  be  stirred  up 
to  perform  the  good  work  of  building  again  the  temple  of 
Jahaveh.  The  total  absence  of  all  political  independence, 
which  was  such  a  trial  to  the  Jewish  colony,  together  with  tlie 
avowed  hate   of    their  numerous    ad\'ersaries  on   every  side, 


Ch.  iv.  7-]         FIFTH   VISION— THE   GOLDEN   CANDLESTICK.      95 

should  not  keep  Zerubbabel  from  boldly  prosecuting  the 
work  which  was  given  to  him  to  perform.  Zerubbabel  was, 
indeed,  a  pasha  of  the  great  king  of  Persia,  who  was  wont 
proudly  to  assert  that  "all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth"  (2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  23)  were  given  into  his  hand  ;  but  Zerubbabel  was 
also  a  servant  of  the  true  "  King  of  kings,"  and  as  such  he  was, 
in  doing  this  work  for  God,  to  take  as  his  watchword,  "  Not 
by  power,  nor  by  might,  but  by  my  Spirit,  saith  the  Lord  of 
hosts."  The  God  of  Israel  designed  to  make  his  people  "  a 
light  to  lighten  the  Gentiles,"  and  the  glorious  light  of  the 
lamps  of  the  golden  candlestick,  which  the  prophet  had  seen 
in  his  vision,  might  serve  to  teach  him  the  lesson  that  what 
God  purposed  would  surely  come  to  pass. 

In  the  expression  that  follows,  "  Who  art  thou,  O  great 
mountain.''  before  Zerubbabel  become  a  plain,"  we  cannot 
accept  the  novel  explanation  of  Pressel,  that  an  allusion  was 
made  to  the  great  rock  out  of  which  the  stones  had  been 
already  quarried  for  the  foundations  of  the  temple,  which 
rock  or  mountain  was  destined  to  be  reduced  to  a  level  plain 
by  its  stones  being  made  use  of  in  the  building  of  the  temple. 
Far  better  is  the  view  given  by  Ewald,  namely,  that  the  moun- 
tain spoken  of  by  the  angel  was  simply  a  figurative  expres- 
sion for  the  various  difficulties  placed  in  the  way  of  the 
temple-building.  Or  even  that  of  Hitzig,  that  the "  moun- 
tain "  was  a  symbol  of  the  world-power  which  was  at  that 
time  opposed  to  the  reconstruction  of  the  sacred  edifice  of  the 
Jews.  The  latter  interpretations  derive  much  support  from 
the  imagery  made  use  of  by  Isaiah  in  a  well-known  passage, 
which  must  often  have  been  repeated  by  the  exiles  who  came 
back  to  their  desolated  homes,  "  Comfort  ye,  comfort  ye  my 
people,  saith  your  God.  .  .  .  The  voice  of  him  that  crieth 
in  the  wilderness,  Prepare  ye  the  way  of  Jahaveh,  make 
straight  in  the  desert  a  highway  for  our  God.  Every  valley 
shall  be  exalted,  and   every  mountain  and  hill  shall  be   made 


96  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPIIl-XIES.         [Cli.  iv.  7. 

low :  and   the  crooked  shall  be  made  straight,  and  the  rough 
places  plain  "  (Isa.  xl.  i,  3,  4).^ 

Nor  can  we  forget  that  when  the  great  Messiah  rebuked  his 
disciples  for  their  want  of  faith,  he  made  use  of  similar  words  : 
"  Vcril}^  I  say  unto  you.  If  ye  have  faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard 
seed,  ye  shall  say  unto  this  mountain.  Remove  hence  to 
yonder  place  ;  and  it  shall  remove  ;  and  nothing  shall  be  im- 
possible unto  you  "  (Matt.  xvii.  20).  And  when,  during  the 
last  week  of  Christ's  work  on  earth,  his  disciples  marvelled  at 
the  withering  away  of  the  barren  fig  tree  (which  was  a  fit 
type  of  the  drying  up  and  death  of  the  barren  fig  tree  of 
Israel),  Christ,  with  a  vivid  anticipation  of  the  victory  which 
his  Church  would  obtain,  pointed  towards  the  mountain  on 
which  the  gorgeous  temple  adorned  by  Herodian  art  was  then 
standing— the  temple  cleansed  the  day  before,  but  probably 
again  desecrated — and  exclaimed,  "  Verily  I  saj'  unto  you^ 
if  ye  have  faith,  and  doubt  not,  ye  shall  not  only  do  this 
which  is  done  unto  the  fig  tree,  but  also  if  ye  shall  say  unto  this 
mountain,  Be  thou  removed,  and  be  thou  cast  into  the  sea, 
it  shall  be  done"  (Matt.  xxi.  2i).~  That  mountain  was  re- 
moved, the  hindrance  which  its  continued  existence  opposed 
to  the  spread  of  Christ's  religion  was  cast  down,  and  rolled 
into  the  sea  of  the  nations.  Not  for  the  first  or  for  the  last 
time  did  faith  remove  mountains  (i  Cor.  xiii.  2).  "This  is  the 
victory  that  ovcrcomcth  the  world,  even  our  faith"  (i  John  iv.4). 

'  R.  Salomo-ben-Yizhak,  or  Rashi,  interprets  the  mountain  here  spoken  of  to 
indicate  the  opposition  raised  by  Tatnai,  Shethar-boznai  and  their  companions  to 
the  building  of  the  temple  by  the  Jews.     See  Ezra  iv.  and  v.  3  IT. 

2  Lightfoot  has  observed  (Ilorre  Heb.  in  loco)  that  a  similar  expression  was  used 
in  the  schools  of  the  Jews,  in  which  men  distinguished  for  their  deep  learning  and 
.splendid  virtues  were  spoken  of  as  "  tearers  up"  or  "removers  of  mountains." 
See  tlie  instances  cited  Ijy  him.  Wiinsche,  in  his  Neiie  Beitrdge  zur  E>lat4terun^:; 
der  Evang.  aus  Talm.  u.  Midrasch,  quotes  another  passage,  "Samuel  said,  If 
the  Government  says,  pluck  u/>  nioimtaiiis  (^1112  SJIpL')  i.e.  when  it  demands 
something  extraordinary  and  impossible,  then  pluck  up  mountains  (mt2  "Ipl?),  for 
it  will  not  take  back  its  word."  But  this  phrase  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  jilacc  in 
the  Talmud  to  which  Wiinsche  refers.  See  also  Langc's  excellent  remarks  on 
this  passage  (Matt.  xxi.  21)  in  his  Bibekvci-k. 


Ch.  iv.  7-9.]    FIFTH   VISION — THE   GOLDEN   CANDLESTICK.      97 

The  word  of  Jahaveh  delivered  to  the  priest-prophet 
was  not,  however,  entirely  expressed  in  figurative  language  ; 
Zerubbabel  was  informed  in  plain  language  that,  as  his  hands 
had  laid  the  foundation-stone,  so  his  hands  should  place  the 
topstone  on  the  completed  building.  That  topstone  should  be 
reared  and  placed  in  its  right  position  by  his  own  hands  amid 
the  loud  acclamations  of  a  rejoicing  people.  Shoutings  of 
"  grace,  grace  unto  it,"  should  rend  the  air,  as  the  stone  was 
being  raised  to  its  proper  position  in  the  edifice,  "  all  favour 
from  God  unto  it,  redoubled  favour,  grace  upon  grace"  (Pusey). 
Such  should  be  the  loud  exclamations  of  the  people  on  the 
occasion,  praying  that  the  work  accomplished  should  have  a 
blessing  from  on  high,  inasmuch  as  it  had  been  begun  and 
completed  under  the  gracious  power  of  Jahaveh.* 

Zerubbabel  was  to  have  the  honour,  as  a  son  of  David,  not 
only  of  commencing  but  of  finishing  the  work.  This  w^as 
stated  by  the  angel  in  these  words :  "  The  hands  of  Zerub- 
babel have  laid  the  foundation  of  this  house,  and  his  hands 
shall  also  finish  it ;  that  thou  mayest  know  that  Jahaveh  of 
hosts  hath  sent  me  unto  you."  By  the  fulfilment  of  this 
promise,  Zechariah  would  have  a  distinct  proof  that  the  inter- 
preting angel  had  been  commissioned  by  Jahaveh  to  announce 
this  prophecy  unto  him  (LXX.  Trpo?  ere),  and  through  him 
unto  Israel.     Compare  chap.  ii.  13,  15.    (Kohler.) 

The  words  that  follow  (verse  10)  have  been  very  differently 
translated  and  explained.  On  the  translations  of  the  ancient 
versions,  see  ourcrit.  comm.  That  oiour  Authorised  Version, 
though  differing  from  them  in  details,  agrees  so  far  as  that  it 
does  not  make  the  seven  eyes  of  Jahaveh  the  subject  of  the  verb 
"rejoice,"  which,  however,  is  the  preferable  translation.    Ewald, 

'  The  Targum  thinks  that  the  Messiah  is  here  predicted,  and  so  Pusey  and 
others.  The  Messiah  is  called  n|S,  the  corner-stone,  used  as  a  foundation 
(Isaiah  xxviii.  16),  also  HSS  C'NI  (Ps.  cxviii.  22),  but  not  as  here  nSi^XIH  pXH, 
the  stone  which  crowns  the  building. 

H 


98  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  iv.  lo. 

whom  Bunscn  follows,  renders  the  passage  thus  :  "For  they 
who  have  despised  the  day  of  small  things,  they  will  rejoice 
and  see  the  lead-stone  in  the  hand  of  Zcrubbabel  ;  these 
seven  are  the  eyes  of  Jahaveh  roaming  through  (durchstreif- 
end)  the  whole  earth."  He  strangely  explains  it  thus  :  those 
who  mocked  at  the  day  when  the  foundation  of  the  temple 
was  laid  under  weak  beginnings,  would  yet  with  joy  behold  in 
the  hand  of  Zerubbabel  the  corner  stone  adorned  with  the 
leaden  inscription  (comp.  Job  xix.  23). 

Apart  from  the  critical  difficulties  connected  with  this 
translation,  especially  as  respects  the  rendering  and  interpre- 
tation of  the  words  rendered  "  the  lead-stone,"  which  transla- 
tion we  hold,  with  Hitzig  and  Kohler,  to  be  incorrect,  con- 
sidered from  a  grammatical  point  of  view  (see  crit.  comm.), 
there  is  another  point  which  must  be  noticed,  namely,  that  this 
rendering  identifies  the  stone  mentioned  in  the  former  vision 
with  the  corner  stone  mentioned  in  this,  for  which  identifi- 
cation no  evidence  can  be  adduced.  The  Hebrew  expression 
cannot  signify  a  stone  into  which  lead  has  been  molten, 
but  must  mean  a  stone  the  substance  of  which  is  lead,  and, 
therefore,  is  correctly  explained  in  our  Authorised  Version  by 
"  the  plummet." 

The  most  probable  translation  is  that  given  by  Hitzig,  Keil, 
Pusey,  etc.,  in  accordance  with  the  Masoretic  accentuation, 
taking  the  pronoun  as  interrogative  :  "  For  Avho  hath  despised 
the  day  of  small  things  .•*  And  [lc.  seeing  that]  these  have 
rejoiced,  and  seen  the  ptimmet  in  the  hands  of  Zcrubbabel, 
these  seven,  the  Eyes  of  Jahaveh,  they  are  running  to  and 
fro  in  all  the  earth."  The  answer  to  the  question  was  ex- 
pected in  the  negative.  No  one  who  seeks  to  perform  or  ac- 
complish anything  great  ever  does  despise  the  day  of  small 
things  (Keil).  The  words  that  follow  signify  that  the  Seven 
Eyes  of  the  Lord  which  run  to  and  fro  in  all  the  earth  had 
already  rejoiced  to  behold  the  plummet  in  the  hands  of  Zcrub- 


Ch.  iv.  lo.]   FIFTH   VISION — THE   GOLDEN    CANDLESTICK.         99 

babel.  But  if  the  Spirit  of  the  hving  God,  who  saw  all  things 
and  knew  all  that  was  done,  rejoiced  to  behold  Zerubbabel 
performing  that  work  which  he  aroused  him  to  undertake,  the 
people  of  the  Lord  had  good  reason  likewise  to  rejoice. 

"  The  day  of  small  things  "  was  no  doubt  understood  by 
the  hearers  of  the  prophet  to  refer  to  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  was  begun.  When  the 
foundation  stone  of  that  second  temple  was  laid,  though  the 
young  men,  who  had  not  beheld  the  glory  of  the  first  temple, 
rent  the  air  with  their  shouts  of  joy,  there  arose  at  the  same 
time  loud  wailings  on  the  part  of  the  old  men  that  had  seen 
the  first  house  in  its  glory  (Ezra  iii.  12,  13).  The  day  of 
great  things,  on  the  other  hand,  was  that  which  was  looked 
for  when  the  house  of  the  Lord  should  be  fully  restored  and 
sanctified  (Kohler). 

It  may  be  urged  against  this  interpretation,  that  the  days 
which  saw  the  temple  building  actually  completed  were  as 
dark  and  gloomy  as  those  that  saw  its  foundation  laid.  That, 
therefore,  the  day  of  small  things  refers  to  the  whole  time 
from  the  days  of  Darius  until  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  who 
first  would  accomplish  great  things  (Keil).  In  a  certain  sense 
this  is  no  doubt  true,  but  the  day  which  was  then  looked  for- 
ward to  with  earnest  longing  was  the  day  when  the  restora- 
tion of  the  temple  should  be  completed ;  and  although  the 
political  condition  of  the  Jewish  people  was  not  very  different 
in  the  sixth  year  of  Darius,  when  the  house  of  God  was  duly 
dedicated,  from  their  condition  in  the  second  year  of  Darius, 
that  dedication  festival  was  indeed  a  day  of  great  things  and 
was  kept  with  great  joy  (Ezra  vi.  14-22).  This  is  the  only 
natural  sense  in  which  to  understand  the  words  of  the  vision. 

It  is  not  impossible  that  some  of  the  expressions  made  use 
of  in  this  vision  may  be  taken  in  a  wider  meaning  and  with  a 
deeper  signification.  We  have  already  pointed  out  this  fact 
in  connection  with  the  mention  of  the  two  olive  trees  that 


100  ZECIIARIAH    AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  iv.  lo. 

supplied  the  oil  required  for  the  golden  candlestick.  But  the 
main  object  and  end  of  this  vision  seems  to  have  been  to  cheer 
and  inspirit  the  Jews  who  had  already  begun  the  work  of 
rebuilding  the  temple,  and  who,  amid  the  constant  opposition 
they  met  with  in  their  work,  needed  Divine  consolation  and 
encouragement  to  induce  them  to  prosecute  that  work  unto  its 
end.  It  is  unnecessary  to  seek  special  references  to  Messianic 
days  in  all  the  phrases  which  the  prophet  uses  with  reference 
to  the  things  of  his  own  day,  the  literal  meaning  of  which 
could  scarcely  be  mistaken  by  his  countrymen  whom  he 
addressed. 

"  Who  is  there  left  among  you  that  saw  this  house  in  its 
first  glory,  and  how  do  ye  see  it  now .-'  Is  it  not  in  your 
eyes  in  comparison  of  it  as  nothing  .''  "  (Hag.  ii.  3).  So  spake 
the  prophet  Haggai,  of  the  second  temple,  in  "  the  day  of  small 
things."  Haggai  appears  to  have  regarded  the  first  advent 
of  the  Messiah  as  nearer  than  it  really  was.  As  St,  Paul^ 
seems  to  have  expected,  at  one  time  at  least,  the  second 
advent  to  occur  in  his  own  day,  so  Haggai  speaks  of  Mes- 
sianic days  as  closely  connected  with  the  restoration  of  the 
temple.  The  prophet  was  permitted  to  see  by  faith  the  glory 
that  should  be  revealed  in  the  second  time,  though  the  day 
of  the  manifestation  of  that  glory  was  more  distant  than  he 
imagined.  With  reference  to  the  days  of  the  INIessiah,  Haggai 
predicted  :  "  The  latter  glory  of  this  house  "  (this  is  the  cor- 
rect rendering,  and  not  "  the  glory  of  the  latter  l^ouse")  "  shall 
be  greater  than  the  former  (glory),  and  in  this  place  will  I 
give  peace,  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts  "  (Hag.  ii.  9).  ^ 


^  This  is  the  rendering  of  Ilitzig,  Ewakl,  Kolilcr  and  Keil.  If  the  adjective 
"latter"  qualified  the  noun  "house," the  pronoun  in  the  Hel)rew would,  as  Ilitzig 
has  correctly  noted,  have  been  placed  after  that  adjective  and  not  before  it,  as  in 
this  verse.  The  distance  of  the  adjective  from  the  word  "  glory"  is  no  objection  to 
this  construction.  For  tliat  noun  is  in  the  const,  state,  and  the  adjective  follows 
the  genitive  by  which  the  noun  is  conditioned.  Conip.  2  Sam.  xxiii.  i ;  Isa. 
xxxvi.  9  ;  see  Ewald,  §  2S9  a. 


Ch.  iv.  10.]  FIFTH   VISION — THE   GOLDEN    CANDLESTICK.       lOI 

Notwithstanding  the  great  difficulties  which  beset  the 
rebuilding  of  the  second  temple,  and  the  political  perplexi- 
ties in  which  the  Jewish  people  were  involved,  that  temple 
had  a  glory  far  higher  than  that  possessed  by  the  temple 
erected  by  Solomon.  Its  courts  were  trodden  by  the  long- 
expected  Messiah,  his  voice  was  often  heard  within  its  walls. 
If  that  temple  was  indeed  destined  to  be  destroyed  by  the 
hands  of  the  destroyer,  and  its  candlestick  to  be  carried  away 
by  the  Romans  among  the  spoils  of  its  holy  places,  the  light 
of  the  symbolical  candlestick  was  extinguished  only  in  order 
that  the  light  from  the  true  candlestick  (whose  lamps  were 
fed  and  supplied  by  the  oil  from  the  two  olive  trees  of  Jewish 
and  Gentile  Christianity)  might  shine  forth  the  more  brightly 
among  the  nations.  Even  in  the  days  of  its  political  insigni- 
ficance, one  might  almost  say  of  its  non-existence  as  a  nation, 
Israel  was  ever  the  "  priestly  nation,"  the  "royal  people  "  in 
the  loftiest  sense  of  that  term.  While  art  and  philosophy  and 
literature  came  from  the  Greeks,  and  the  Romans  tamed  the 
spirit  of  fierce  nations  by  their  laws,  as  they  had  subdued 
them  by  their  arms,  the  Jews,  who  before  Christ  came  were  as 
lights  shining  amid  the  spiritual  darkness  of  the  world,  have 
through  the  religion  of  Christ  (which  w^as  first  preached  to 
the  Jews  and  then  by  Jews  to  the  nations)  proved  themselves 
to  be  the  real  priests  of  the  world. 


CHAPTER    IV. 


THE  SIXTH  VISION— THE  FLYING  ROLL  AND    THE 
WOMAN  IN  THE  EPHAH 


CHAPTER   IV. 


Vision  of  the  flying  roll,  105 — The  curse,  105 — Its  dimensions,  105 — Meaning  of 
its  size,  106 — Opinion  of  Ilitzig,  Pressel,  etc.,  106 — Supposed  reference  to  the 
porch  of  the  temple  of  Solomon,  107 — The  dimensions  those  of  the  Holy  Place 
of  the  tabernacle,  107 — Significance  of  this  fact,  107 — The  measure  of  the 
sanctuary,  107 — Connections  of  the  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  visions,  107,  120 — 
The  whole  land,  108 — Thieves  and  perjurers,  109 — Jews  transformed  into  a  com- 
mercial people,  109 — The  sins  of  commerce,  109 — The  cleansing  of  the  land, 
no — Punishments  for  sin,  no — The  ephah  appearing  to  the  prophet,  in — The 
talent-weight,  not  a  leaden  cover  of  the  ephah,  in — -Objections  to  that  view, 
112 — The  woman  sitting  in  the  ephah,  112 — "  Wickedness  "  and  her  instni- 
ments,  113 — "  This  is  their  eye,"  113 — Different  views,  114 — Ewald's  render- 
ing, 114 — Objections  to  his  translation,  114 — Real  meaning  of  the  phrase,  115 
— The  woman  and  the  talent-weight,  1 15 — Her  punishment  by  the  angel,  116 — 
Her  rescue  from  destruction,  117 — The  stork- winged  women,  117 — Their  signi- 
ficance, 117— Pressel's  view,  118 — The  land  of  Shinar  and  the  land  of  Israel, 
118 — Christ  as  the  Purifier  of  his  people,  119 — General  import  of  the  vision,  120. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE   SIXTH   VISION — THE    FLYING    ROEL   AND    THE   WOMAN 
IN   THE   EPHAH. 

The  vision  of  the  flying  roll  and  that  of  the  woman  in  the 
ephah  are  so  closely  connected,  as  to  form  properly  but  one 
vision,  though  some  scholars  have  regarded  them  as  being 
two.  The  arguments  adduced  on  behalf  of  the  latter  opinion 
do  not,  however,  appear  to  us  satisfactory.  The  two  visions 
together  form  a  striking  picture  of  the  result  of  sin,  and  the 
end  of  transgression, 

A  roll  was  first  beheld  by  the  prophet  flying  in  the  air.  It 
was  of  strange  and  unnatural  dimensions.  On  it  were  in- 
scribed the  awful  curses  denounced  against  transgressors.  It 
is  probable,  as  Fressel  thinks,  that  the  curses  referred  to 
were  those  pronounced  by  Moses  (Deut.  xxviii.  15,  ff.),  and 
afterwards  alluded  to  in  the  singular  as  "  the  curse  "  (Deut. 
XXX.  i),  although  the  word  rendered  "the  curse"  in  the 
passage  of  the  law  and  in  the  writing  of  the  prophet  are  not 
identical.  The  opinion  of  Pressel,  however,  is  not  capable  of 
any  proof.  If  correct,  the  roll  seen  by  the  prophet  was  the  roll 
of  the  law. 

The  dimensions  of  the  roll,  which  was  seen  as  expanded  and 
not  rolled  together,  appeared  to  the  prophet  to  be  twenty  cubits 
long  and  ten  cubits  broad,  Hitzig  considers  that  it  was  so 
large  because  it  was  represented  as  containing  the  whole  sum 
of  the  Divine  curses.^      Something  more  than  enormous  size 

^  He  remarks  the  dimensions  given  are  more  suitable  to  its  having  been  seen 
rather  in  the  form  of  a  book  than  in  that  of  a  roll,  and  suggests  that  it  may  have 
been  seen  as  written  on  papyrus  with  leaves,  though  the  latter  are  not  mentioned. 


I06  ZECIIARIAH   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  v.  1-7. 

(Kohler)  seems  to  be  intimated  by  the  special  dimensions 
given.  Pressel  (aftfr  Marck)  thinks  that  the  roll  was  thus 
represented  as  bearing  in  its  outlines  the  appearance  of  the 
Holy  Land,  the  proportions  in  length  and  breadth  being 
identical,  though  the  roll  had  those  proportions  in  a  reduced 
size.  Still  more  fanciful  is  the  idea  of  Jerome  that  these 
numbers  indicate  the  age  at  which  our  Lord  commenced  his 
public  ministry,  i.e.  thirty  years  or  20+10.  The  dimen- 
sions assigned  to  the  roll  are  those  of  the  porch  of  the  temple 
of  Solomon  (r  Kings  vi.  3),  and  the  Jewish  expositor  Kimchi 
and  others  have  considered  that  there  is  a  reference  here  to 
that  place.  For  the  porch  of  that  temple,  as  Hengstenberg 
observes,  was  the  outer  part  of  the  temple  proper,  and  was 
the  place  where  God  was  supposed  to  enter  into  intercourse 
with  his  people,  even  as  Solomon  judged  the  people  of  Israel 
in  the  hall  of  his  palace  (i  Kings  vii.  6).  Hence  before  that 
porch,  in  the  outer  court  of  the  priests,  stood  the  altar  of 
burnt  offering,  and  there  "between  the  porch  and  the  altar," 
priests  and  people  in  times  of  public  calamity  were  wont 
together  to  entreat  the  mercy  of  the  Lord  (Joel  ii.  17).  Lias- 
much,  therefore,  as  the  roll  had  the  dimensions  of  that  porch, 
the  judgment  pronounced  in  it  was  represented  as  the  result  of 
the  theocracy. 

Von  Hofmann  considers  that  Joshua  was  represented  in  the 
fourth  vision  as  standing  before  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh  in  the 
holy  of  holies.  He  supposes  that  the  scene  of  the  fifth  vision 
was  laid  in  the  holy  place,  and  that  of  the  present  vision  in  the 
porch  of  the  temple.  While  agreeing  with  v.  Hofmann  gene- 
rally as  to  the  special  localities  in  which  the  fourth  and  the  fifth 
visions  were  exhibited  to  the  prophet,  it  appears  to  us  that. 

For  as  Egypt  belonged,  in  the  days  of  Zechariah,  to  the  Persian  empire,  the 
customs  of  that  country  were  known  to  strangers.  As,  however,  no  mention  is 
made  of  the  thickness  of  the  book,  and  as  moreover  it  is  represented  as  flying, 
Hitzig  concludes  that  it  is  more  correct  to  regard  it  as  one  leaf,  and  thus  to  ex- 
plain its  extraordinary  size,  and  that  an  actual  roll  was  seen  by  the  prophet. 


Ch.  V.  1-3.]      THE   SIXTH   VISION — THE   FLYING   ROLL.  10/ 

if  the  vision  under  consideration  was  to  be  regarded  as  seen 
in  the  porch  of  the  temple,  some  more  definite  intimation 
would  have  been  given  than  the  fact  that  the  dimensions 
of  the  roll  were  identical  with  those  of  the  porch  of  the 
temple. 

As  no  distinct  proof  can  be  adduced  that  the  porch  of  the 
temple  had  any  special  symbolical  meaning  (though  its  dimen- 
sions were  perhaps  borrowed  from  the  Mosaic  tabernacle), 
it  is  better  to  regard  the  dimensions  of  the  flying  roll  as  refer- 
ring to  the  holy  place  of  that  tabernacle.  The  roll  is  not  to  be 
considered,  however,  as  coming  forth  from  the  holy  place,  and 
as,  therefore,  of  the  same  size,  in  order  to  signify  that  the 
curse  came  from  the  sanctuary  where  Jahaveh  was  enthroned 
(Isa.  Ixvi.  6).  It  would  be  strange  if  the  fact  that  the  roll 
corresponded  in  size  with  the  sanctuary  were  sufficient  to 
indicate  that  it  came  forth  from  the  sanctuary  itself.  Kliefoth 
seems  to  have  assigned  the  true  reason  for  the  roll  having 
the  dimensions  of  the  sanctuary,  namely,  that  the  measure 
wherewith  sin  was  to  be  measured  was  the  measure  of  the 
sanctuary,  and  hence  "  the  curse"  commences  first  at  the 
house  of  God  (comp.  Ezek.  ix.  6;  and  i  Pet.  iv.  17).  Men 
are  not  to  be  judged  as  to  sin  by  their  own  measures  or 
weighed  in  their  own  false  balances.  The  measure  of  the 
sanctuary  is  that  by  which  actions  are  to  be  weighed 
(i  Sam.  ii.  3). 

In  the  fourth  vision  the  cleansing  of  the  priesthood  (and  of 
the  people  whom  they  represented)  had  been  set  forth.  They 
had  been  pardoned  and  justified  by  Divine  grace.  The 
golden  candlestick  of  the  sanctuary  as  represented  in  the 
fifth  vision,  once  more,  therefore,  shed  forth  its  bright  and 
glorious  light.  The  light  of  good  works  had  been  exhibited 
by  the  people  of  God,  after  that  the  grace  of  God  had  been 
displayed  towards  them.  The  sixth  vision  represents  sin 
itself  as  condemned,  and  all  wicked  doers,  persisting  in  their 


I08  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  v.  3. 

ungodliness,  as  "cleansed  away,"^  and  cutoff  from  the  city  of 
the  Lord  "  (Psalm  ci.  8).  The  transgressors  that  still  ventured 
to  remain  among  the  people  of  God  should  be  consumed  by 
the  curse  ;  against  them  should  the  anger  of  the  Lord  wax 
hot,  the  curses  should  lie  upon  such  (Deut.  xxix.  20,21),  and 
sin  should  not  find  any  more  an  abiding  place  among  the 
congregation   of  Jahaveh. 

The  curse  is  represented  as  going  forth  "over  the  face  of 
the  whole  land,"  or  "  earth,"  as  it  is  rendered  in  our  Author- 
ised Version.  The  latter  meaning  has  been  defended  by 
several  commentators,  but  it  does  not  appear  to  be  appro- 
priate here.  For  as  "  the  land  "  is  contrasted  with  the  "  land 
of  Shinar  "  mentioned  at  the  close  of  the  vision,  the  land  of 
Israel  must  be  referred  to." 

*  The  verb  nj??  is  here  the  niphal.  The  piel  is  alike  in  form.  The  probable 
meaning  of  the  root  is  to  cai~ve  out,  to  hollow,  then  to  be  empty,  to  be  pure.  Hence 
the  niphal  is  used  in  the  sense  of  to  be  pure,  free  from  fault,  followed  by  JD. 
Luther  has  taken  it  here  in  this  meaning,  translating,  "  for  all  thieves  shall  accord- 
ing to  this  letter  be  pronounced  pious"  (werden  fromm  gesprochen).  That  is, 
it  is  a  curse  upon  the  land  that  theft  and  perjury  are  regarded  no  more  as  crying 
evils,  nor  as  deserving  of  punishment.  Similarly  Syr.  But  this  is  evidently  not 
the  meaning.  The  modern  critics  rightly  render  it,  shall  be  cleared  or  cleansed 
aiuay.  The  verb  is  used  of  a  city  being  emptied  of  its  inhabitants,  i.e.,  laid  waste 
and  ruined  (Isa.  iii.  26).  The  Arabic  verb  occurs  in  this  signification  in  the  Xth 
conj.,  as  Gesenius  notes.  The  verb  here  may  be  employed  in  the  sense  of 
being  rendered  solitary,  emptied  of  society,  driven  out  of  communion  (Fiirst), 
or  as  signifying  extirpated  (Gesenius).  It  has  probably  the  signification  of 
cleansing  aiuay,  7i%  the  Greek  Kadapi^(>)  in  Mark  vii.  19,  as  Pusey  suggests,  or 
as  iKKadaipu,  in  i  Cor.  v.  7,  as  Pressel  has  given.  On  the  ancient  versions, 
see  crit.  comm.  The  verb  is  nowhere  else  used  in  this  signification.  Hence 
it  is  strange  that  Dr.  Pusey  should  remark  that  Gesenius  had  missed  "the 
moral  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word  "  by  his  translation.  Dr.  Pusey's  references 
to  I  Kings  -xiv.  10,  xxi.  21,  Deut.  xiii.  6  (verse  5  in  E.V.),  etc.,  may  misle.id 
some,  inasmuch  as  the  word  used  in  those  passages  is  not  identical  with  that 
here  found.     Those  passages,  however,  illustrate  the  sense. 

"  But  it  does  not  follow  (as  Rosenmiiller  thinks)  that  the  prophecy  refers  to  the 
captivity  in  Babylon  which  had  terminated,  or  that  it  predicts,  as  Hcngstcnberg 
seems  to  imagine,  the  captivity  of  the  Jews  by  the  Romans.  Though  "  the  land  " 
here  most  naturally  signifies  the  Holy  Land  in  its  geographical  sense,  and  was,  no 
doubt,  so  understood  by  the  Jewish  colony  at  Jerusalem,  to  whom  Zcchariah  first 
related  these  visions,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  may  not  also  have  a  reference  to  the 
Church  of  Christ  (Keil).      But  the  idea  that  the  expulsion  of  all  sinners  from  the 


Ch.  V.  3.]  SIXTH   VISION — THE   FLYING   ROLL.  109 

"  The  curse  "  was  written  on  both  sides  of  the  flying  roll, 
and  was  specially  directed  against  thieves  and  perjurers.  For 
the  expression  "  he  that  sweareth  "  must  be  understood  as 
explained  in  the  following  verse  of  swearing  falsely  by  the 
name  of  Jahaveh,  though  the  approximation  here  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Matt.  v.  34)  is  note- 
worthy. Theft  and  perjury  are  the  two  most  notable  examples 
of  open  transgression  against  the  commandments  of  God. 
Perjury,  or  lying  in  its  grossest  form,  is  a  sin  against  the  first 
table  of  the  law,  being  a  breach  of  the  third  commandment. 
Theft  is  a  breach  of  the  second  table,  the  violation  of  the 
eighth  commandment.  These  special  sins  are  often  wont  to 
retain  their  power,  and  to  be  more  or  less  indulged  in  by 
many  who  belong  to  the  congregation  of  the  Lord,  even  after 
the  grosser  transgressions  of  the  law,  such  as  idolatry  and 
murder,  have  in  a  great  measure  ceased. 

These  sins  were  violations  of  the  law  but  too  common 
among  the  Jews  who  returned  from  the  Captivity.  Their 
peculiar  position  during  the  long  years  of  banishment  from 
their  own  land  had  driven  that  people  to  engage  more  gene- 
rally in  commercial  occupations.  They  were  thus  exposed  to 
peculiar  temptations  to  commit  such  sins.  They  had  been  in 
a  great  measure  cured  of  their  propensity  to  idolatry  during 
their  bitter  exile.  The  desire  of  preserving  their  nationality 
among  the  nations  had  in  a  great  degree  led  them  to  maintain 
the  purity  of  their  faith.  After  the  restoration,  however,  the 
Jews  never  again  became  the  agricultural  nation  they  had  been 
before  that  event.  They  had  been,  no  doubt,  entangled  in  the 
sins  peculiar  to  that  course  of  life  in  the  days  of  Zechariah, 
and  hence  the  special  mention  made  of  them  in  this  place. 

According  to  the  curse  represented  in  the  vision,  the  thief 
was   condemned   by  the   one   table"  of   the  law,  which  was 

Holy  Land  at  the  commencement  of  the  millennial  era  (v.  Hofmann)  is  referred  to 
finds  no  support  in  the  language  of  this  prophecy. 


1 10  ZECHARIAH   AND   IIIS   PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  v.  3,  4. 

written  "  on  this  side  "  of  the  flying  roll,  as  a  transgressor 
who  ought  to  be  cleansed  away,  according  to  it,  from  the  con- 
gregation. The  perjurer  was  likewise  to  be  cleansed  away 
according  to  the  solemn  curse  written  on  the  other  side.  The 
awful  results  of  that  curse  are  strikingly  pictured  in  the  words 
that  follow.  The  curse  itself  is  represented  as  brought  out 
of  the  Lord's  treasures  of  wrath  (Deut.  xxxii.  34,  35),  and  as 
lodging  for  the  night  in  the  house  of  the  thief  or  perjurer,  i.e., 
abiding  there  "  until  it  accomplish  that  for  which  it  was  sent, 
its  utter  destruction"  (Pusey).^ 

God  will  not  endure  the  practice  of  immorality  in  the 
midst  of  those  that  are  his  people.  The  justified  must  be 
sanctified.  His  people  must  be  righteous.  He  sits  to  purify 
and  to  refine  the  house  of  Israel.  Visibly  or  invisibly,  he 
ever  separates  the  chafif  from  the  wheat,  and  executes  judg- 
ment in  the  midst  of  his  people.  The  book  of  the  Proverbs 
abundantly  proves  this.  Theft  and  perjury  are  sins  near  of  kin 
to  one  another,  the  one  almost  invariably  producing  the  other, 
and  these  sins  often  in  this  life  experience  Divine  chastisement. 
The  ungodly  may  flourish  for  a  season,  but  soon  he  is  sought 
for  and  can  nowhere  be  found  (Ps.  xxxvii.  35,  '^6).  That  such 
crimes  should  have  been  special  objects  of  Providential  judg- 
ments among  the  people  who  had  returned  from  Babylon  is 

'  The  well-known  instance  of  Glaucus,  mentioned  by  Herodotus  (Book  vi.  86), 
maybe  given  as  an  example.  His  name  stood  once  high  for  integrity,  and  hence 
a  Milesian  came  to  him  to  deposit  a  sum  of  money  on  trust.  The  deposit  was  ac- 
cepted by  Glaucus.  But  when  the  money  was  required  by  the  sons  of  the  deposi- 
tor, who  presented  the  tallies  in  support  of  their  claim,  Glaucus  hesitated  to 
restore  it.  He  consulted  the  oracle  of  Delphi  whether  he  might  perjure  himself 
and  make  a  prize  of  the  money.  The  priestess  told  him  that  it  was  best  for  the 
present  to  do  as  he  desired,  for  that  death  was  the  common  lot  of  the  honest  and 
dishonest.  "Yet  Oath  hath  a  son,  nameless,  handless,  footless,  but  swift  he 
pursues  until  he  seize  and  destroy  the  whole  race  and  house."  On  hearing  this 
Glaucus  begged  to  be  pardoned  for  his  question,  but  the  priestess  replied  that  it 
was  as  bad  to  have  tempted  the  god  as  to  have  done  the  deed.  Glaucus  ultimately 
restored  the  money  to  its  owners.  Yet  it  was  noted  that  his  whole  family  be- 
came extinct,  which  was  considered  as  a  punishment  for  having  consulted  the  god 
whetlier  he  might  perjure  himself  for  gain. 


Ch.  V.  4-7.]       THE  SIXTH  VISION — WOMAN  IN  THE  EPHAH.    1 1 1 

highly  probable.  All  such  instances  of  Divine  judgments  on 
earth  must  be  regarded  as  mere  premonitory  droppings  of  the 
tempest  of  wrath  which  will  one  day  overwhelm  the  ungodly. 
The  history  of  sin  is,  as  Kliefoth  notes,  by  no  means 
finished  when  the  open  sinners  have  been  separated  from  the 
congregation  of  the  holy.  That  history  has  a  further  sequel. 
Accordingly,  after  the  interpreting  angel  had  explained  the 
purport  of  the  flying  roll,  he  left  the  prophet's  side  for  a 
moment ;  and  thus  having  by  his  movements  awakened  special 
attention,  he  called  upon  the  prophet  to  observe  the  new  scene 
that  was  now  passing  before  him.^ 

As  the  prophet  lifted  up  his  eyes,  he  saw  an  ephah  going 
forth,  that  is,  emerging  from  the  mist,  and  coming  clearly 
into  view.  The  ephah  was  a  dry  measure  in  common  use 
among  the  Hebrews,  corresponding  very  nearly  to  our  bushel, 
although  there  is  still  much  difference  of  opinion  as  to  its 
exact  size  and  capacity.  Whatever  its  precise  dimensions 
may  have  been,  it  was  the  largest  dry  measure  in  ordinary 
use,  and  hence  it  is  mentioned  here  with  a  special  purpose. 

In  close  conjunction  with  the  ephah,  "a  talent  of  lead"  is 
spoken  of  in  verse  7,  or,  as  it  is  termed  in  verse  8,  "  the  stone 
of  lead,"  in  other  words,  a  leaden  weight  of  the  weight  of  a 
talent.  The  majority  of  expositors  have  considered  the  words 
to  signify  "  a  cover  of  lead"  with  which  the  ephah  was  closed. 
But  if  the  ephah  had  a  cover  of  lead,  that  cover  would  scarcely 
have  been  termed  "  the  stone  of  lead,"  or  "  the  leaden  stone  " 
(verse  8).  The  rendering  "  leaden  cover  "  obscures  the  real 
significance  of  the  vision.  The  Hebrew  word  rendered 
"talent"    does,    indeed,  literally   mean  "a  circle,"^  and  the 

^  This  appears  the  most  natural  explanation  of  the  statements  in  verse  5,  though 
the  idea  of  Dr.  Pusey  is  quite  possible,  namely,  that  the  interpreting  angel  came 
forth  from  the  choirs  of  angels  among  whom  he  had  retired  in  the  interval.  During 
the  entire  of  the  vision  the  interpreting  angel  seems  to  have  been  the  speaker. 

^  beeGen7~xiii.  10,  xix.  17,  25  ff.,  where  our  Authorised  Version  has  ren- 
dered it  by  the  plain.     It  means  in  these  places  the  circumjacent  tract  of  country. 


112  ZECIiARIAII   AND   IIIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  v.  7. 

expression  "  a  circle  of  bread  "  is  used  to  denote  a  round  loaf 
(Exod.  xxix.  23  ;  i  Sam.  ii.  36).  The  word  is  not  found  in  the 
signification  of  a  cover,  though  that  is  a  possible  signification. 
It  is  constantly  used  in  the  sense  of  a  fixed  weight  by  which 
gold,  silver,  and  other  things,  were  weighed  and  measured,  and 
is  naturally  spoken  of  in  such  a  meaning  here  in  connexion 
with  the  ephah,  as  the  latter  was  the  usual  measure  of 
capacity.  The  talent  was  the  standard  measure  of  quantity, 
and  the  weight  was  made  of  lead  as  the  most  common  heavy 
metal,  and  was  used  in  all  commercial  transactions  for 
weighing  out  money. 

Even  assuming  that  the  ephah  was  of  the  largest  dimen- 
sions which  have  been  assigned  to  it,  it  would  have  been 
utterly  impossible  for  a  woman  to  have  been  pressed  down 
inside  such  a  measure,  and  covered  up  with  a  lid.  That 
is  what  is  generally  supposed  to  have  been  seen  by  the 
prophet  in  the  vision.  But  the  vision,  instead  of  speak- 
ing of  the  woman  as  crushed  up  within  the  narrow  bounds 
of  an  ephah,  speaks  of  her  as  seen  (in  verse  7)  sitting  in 
the  middle  of  an  ephah.  This  is  not  the  way  in  which 
the  writer  would  have  expressed  himself  had  he  intended 
to  represent  the  woman  as  raising  herself  up  after  having 
been  crushed  down  beneath  a  heavy  cover.  Moreover,  it 
would  have  been  utterly  incongruous  to  have  represented 
a  woman  crushed  down  inside  an  ephah,  which  was  not  by 
any  means  large  enough  to  contain  a  woman.  Even  if  the 
ephah  had  been  large  enough  to  contain  a  woman  forced  on 
her  side,  the  phrase  "sitting  in  the  midst  of  the  ephah  "  could 
scarcely  be  used  of  a  woman  lifting  up  herself  from  such 
a  position.  That  phrase  seems  rather  to  indicate  a  posture  of 
repose. 

A  woman  could  be  represented  as  sitting  inside  the  ephah 
in  a  somewhat  crouching  posture,  the  larger  portion  of  her 
body  being  visible  above  it.     Pressel  is  correct    in  regarding 


Ch.  V.  6-8.]     SIXTH   VISION — WOMAN   IN   THE   EPHAH.  II3 

the  woman  in  this  vision  as  thus  represented.  As  she  sat  in 
the  ephah,  the  largest  dry  measure,  she  carried  in  her  lap  a 
talent  of  lead,  the  largest  measure  used  in  the  computation 
of  money.  Both  measures  were  needful  in  the  most  ordi- 
nary commercial  transactions. 

The  prophet  was  directed  to  notice  the  ephah.  He  soon 
observed  the  woman  sitting  in  it,  and  the  talent  which  she 
carried.  "  This  woman,"  said  the  interpreting  angel,  "  is 
wickedness."  The  ephah  and  the  talent  were  the  instruments 
used  by  her  in  the  pursuit  of  trade.  The  vision  recalls  to 
mind  the  expression  used  by  another  and  earlier  prophet  with 
regard  to  unrighteous  traders,  "  making  the  ephah  small  and 
the  shekel  great,  and  falsifying  the  balances  by  deceit " 
(Amos  viii.  5),  and  the  many  solemn  warnings  against  false 
weights  and  balances,  and  the  deceitful  devices  of  ungodly 
traders,  so  abundantly  reprobated  in  the  book  of  the  Pro- 
verbs. 

Jerome  imagines  that  the  sin  of  the  people  is  represented 
in  this  figure  as  gathered  together  into  one  heap  into  the 
ephah,  in  order  to  be  cast  away  from  the  land.  But  in  that 
case  there  would  be  no  special  fitness  at  all  in  the  mention  of 
an  ephah,  nor  in  the  comparison  of  the  sinners,  that  is  the 
thieves  and  perjurers  mentioned  before,  to  such  an  ephah  and 
its  contents.  Nor  would  there  be  any  special  reason  why 
the  talent  should  be  called  a  talent  of  lead,  even  supposing 
the  lid  of  the  ephah  was  alluded  to,' 

The  remarkable  expression  which  occurs  in  verse  6,  "  This 
is  their  eye "  Vulg.  hsec  est  oculus  eorum,  must  be  here 
considered.  This  is  the  literal  translation  of  the  words.  The 
LXX.  either  had   actually  a  different  reading,   or,  not  com- 

'  Von  Hofmann  views  the  passage  as  giving  a  picture  of  the  fate  of  those  that  rebel 
against  God's  commandments.  But  this  interpretation  is  not  explicit  enough,  and 
makes  the  second  part  of  tlie  vision  respecting  "  the  ephah  "  to  be  little  more  than 
a  repetition  of  that  taught  by  "  the  flying  roll." 

I 


114  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  v.  6-S 

prehending  the  Hebrew,  altered  the  text,  and  read,  "  this  is 
their  iniquity  in  all  the  earth,"  i.e.,  this  ephah  represents  their 
iniquity.  Similarly  the  Syr.,  "  this  is  the  measure  in  which 
is  contained  the  sin  of  all  the  earth."  This  reading  has  been 
approved  of  by  Hitzig  and  other  critics,  under  the  idea  that 
the  ephah  represents  the  sin  of  Israel  compressed  into  one 
mass.  But  as  that  does  not  appear  to  be  the  meaning  of 
the  vision,  there  is  no  need  to  alter  the  Masoretic  text.^ 

Ewald  renders  "  this  is  their  spectacle,  that  is  the  spectacle 
of  the  people  in  the  whole  land,  which  all  could  see  as  a  warn- 
ing example,"  in  allusion  to  the  woman  shut  up,  as  he  thinks 
she  was  represented,  in  the  dark  inside  of  the  ephah,  and  kept 
down  by  the  heavy  leaden  cover.  The  woman  was,  however, 
later  to  be  exhibited  and  exposed  to  the  contempt  of  all,  as  a 
wild  animal  taken  away  in  a  cage.  Ewald  explains  "  this  is 
their  eye,  their  look,  that  which  they  would  willingly  see  " 
(comparing  Okarpov,  i  Cor.  iv.  9).  But  the  demonstrative 
pronoun  would  in  this  case  refer  more  or  less  distinctly  to 
the  woman  in  the  ephah,  and  not  to  the  ephah  itself,  which 
latter  is  primarily  what  was  meant.  Moreover,  as  Hitzig 
observes,  if  this  was  the  meaning,  the  woman  would  have 
been  more  naturally  represented  as  confined  in  an  open  cage. 
The  reference  of  the  vision  is  clearly  to  the  ephah  and 
its  contents.  The  meaning  of  the  phrase  is,  therefore,  "this 
is  their  eye,"  i.e.  this  is  that  to  which  they  have  an  eye.- 

^  The  translation  of  our  Authorised  Version,  "  this  is  their  resemblance,"  is 
that  adopted  by  Luther,  and  by  several  moderns,  as  Rosenmiiller,  Maurer,  and 
Bunsen.  The  meaning  in  that  case  is,  "  that  which  you  see  contains  a  picture  of 
those  things  which  the  Hebrews  did,  and  what  they  suffered.  It  is  not  something 
future  which  is  exhibited,  but  a  thing  past,  in  order  that  the  Jews  might  avoid  for 
the  future  bringing  upon  themselves  similar  punishments"  (Rosenmiiller).  In  such 
a  case  the  reference  is  not  only  to  what  the  prophet  had  seen,  but  to  that  which  he 
would  see  in  the  course  of  the  vision. 

'  So  Hengstenberg,  Kohler,  Pressel.  It  does  not,  however,  signify  that  "  the 
efforts  of  the  whole  nation  are  directed  to  the  filling  up  of  the  measure  of  its 
sin"  (Hengstenberg). 


Ch.  V.  6-8.]   SIXTH   VISION — THE  WOMAN  IN  THE   EPHAH.    II5 

This  ephah  is  that  towards  which  all  those  who  dwell  in  the 
land  (the  thieves  and  perjurers  already  mentioned)  look  with 
longing  eyes.  Wherever  thieves  and  perjured  persons  are  to 
be  found  throughout  the  land,  and  in  all  the  earth,  their  eyes 
are  ever  to  weights  and  measures,  their  whole  thoughts  are 
turned  towards  the  acquisition  of  earthly  gain.  They  are  en- 
amoured of  "wickedness  "  sitting  in  the  ephah,  by  which  that 
which  they  sell  is  measured  out,  and  bearing  in  her  lap  the 
leaden  weight  by  which  they  reckon  their  gains.  The  Targum 
was,  therefore,  not  far  wrong  in  its  paraphrase  of  this  passage, 
"  These  are  the  people  who  receive  and  give  false  measures  " 
(see  crit.  comm.). 

In  the  translation  of  the  whole  passage  we  coincide  in  the 
main  with  Pressel.  "  And  behold  a  talent  of  lead  was  being 
lifted  up,  i.e.  (carried),"  and  I  saw,  "  and  this  (was)  one 
woman,"  so  Rashi  (see  crit.  comm.),  "  sitting  (that  is,  as  she 
sat)  in  the  middle  of  the  ephah."  There  is  no  need  to  sup- 
pose that  the  weight  was  seen  as  lifted  up.^ 

The  woman  does  not  seem  to  have  been  noticed  before  by 
the  prophet.  She,  however,  soon  riveted  his  chief  attention. 
"  This  "  woman,  said  the  interpreting  angel  to  the  prophet, 
naming  her  by  her  true  name,  "  is  wickedness."  Well  might 
she  be  thus  named,  having  in  her  hand  the  leaden  weight  with 
which  she  was  wont  to  traffic,  and  sitting  crouched  down  in 
an  empty  bushel  or  ephah,  as  if  that  were  her  true  seat  and 
throne.  The  false  measure,  says  Neumann  truly,  is  her  seat, 
the  place  of  her  devising  and  working.  It  was  a  special  form 
of  "  wickedness "  that  was  here  pourtrayed,  namely,  un- 
righteousness as  it  manifests  itself  in  matters  of  weight  and 
measure,  or,  to  designate  it  in  our  Lord's  own  words,  "  unfaith- 
fulness as  regards  the  unrighteous  mammon  "  (Luke  xvi.  11). 

^  The  Hebrew  accentuation  forbids  us  to  translate  "and  this  one  woman  was 
sitting  in  the  midst  of  the  ephah."  Nor  would  such  a  translation  afford  a  good 
sense,  as  the  woman  was  not  previously  mentioned. 


Il6  ZECIIARIAII    AND    IIIS   PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  v.  8,9. 

This  is  represented  as  a  woman,  because  of  the  power  it 
displays  as  a  temptress,  whereby  it  exercises  such  an  enticing 
and  dangerous  influence  over  the  souls  of  men.  Grotius  was 
not  far  wrong  when  he  said  that  wickedness  is  here  described 
as  a  woman,  because  she  is  "the  mother  of  thefts  and  perjuries 
and  of  all  crimes." 

But  "  with  the  same  measure  that  ye  mete  withal,  shall  it 
be  measured  to  you  again  "  (Luke  vi.  38  ;  Matt.  vii.  2).  The 
very  instrument  v/hich  the  woman  used  for  her  unholy  work 
was  to  be  the  means  of  her  confusion.  The  ephah  in  which 
she  sat  was  made  the  chariot  in  which  she  was  removed  from 
the  land  ;  and  the  angel,  with  righteous  indignation,  seized 
the  woman  herself,  dashed  her  down  into  the  ephah  as  she 
was  about  to  rise  from  her  sitting  posture,  and,  taking  hold 
of  the  leaden  weight,  flung  the  heavy  "  stone  of  lead  "  upon 
her  mouth.  Thus  did  the  angel  indicate  that  "wickedness" 
would  be  a  subject  of  Divine  wrath.  He  smote  her  in  the 
mouth  wherewith  she  had  so  often  uttered  words  of  lying  and 
fraud  ;  and  did  so  with  the  very  instrument  with  which  she 
was  wont  to  measure  her  ungodly  gain.  Thus  was  her  mouth 
stopped  (Ps.  cvii.  42  ;  Job  v.  16),  and  the  instrument  of  sin 
was  made  the  instrument  of  her  punishment. 

This  is  the  natural  explanation  of  the  words  of  verse  8,  and 
is  that  given  by  the  Ga'eek  translators,  the  Jewish  commentator 
Rashi,  Rosenmiiller,  etc.  Others  (as  Maurerand  Ewald)  follow 
Kimchi  in  understanding  the  moutli  to  signify  not  the  mouth 
of  the  woman,  but  that  of  the  ephah  upon  which  the  heavy 
leaden  cover  was  cast.^      Comp.  Gen.  xxix.  2  ;  Ps.  cxli.  7,  etc. 

The  woman  in  the  vision  was,  however,  delivered  from  the 
complete  destruction  which  seemed  to  be  impending  over  her 
by  the  sudden  aid  of  two  winged  women.  These  women 
were  apparently  her  aiders  and  abettors.     They  came  rapidly 

'  Pressel  in  order  to  soften  down  the  apparent  harshness  of  tlie  expression, 
arljitrarily  translates  "  into  htr  bosomj 


Ch.  V.  9-II.]  SIXTH   VISION — THE  WOMAN  IN  THE   EPHAH.    11/ 

towards  her,  with  such  rapidity  that  the  wind  seemed  to  be  in 
their  wings,  so  quickly  were  they  borne  through  the  air.  The 
wings  of  these  women  were  like  those  of  a  stork,  which  is  named 
as  being  a  well-known  bird  of  passage  with  wide-spreading 
wings,  and  noted  moreover  for  its  skill  in  constructing  its  nest. 
The  stork  is  a  bird  which  would  be  at  home  in  the  well- 
watered  land  of  Babylon.  The  wings  of  the  women  may 
possibly  have  been  likened  to  those  of  storks,  because  that 
bird  was  unclean  (Lev,  xi.  19),  though  in  this  case  that  fact 
seems  scarcely  to  be  a  sufficient  reason.  The  stork-winged 
women  lifted  up  the  ephah  and  its  contents,  and  bore  it  off 
between  heaven  and  earth.  When  the  prophet  asked  the 
angel  whither  they  were  bearing  the  ephah  in  which  the 
woman  was,  he  received  the  answer,  "  To  build  for  her  a 
house  in  the  land  of  Shinar,  and  it  shall  be  established,  and 
she  shall  be  placed  there  upon  her  own  base." 

These  two  women  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  instru- 
ments of  God,  used  to  remove  sinners  from  the  congregation 
of  his  people.  Nor  is  it  likely  that  women  were  introduced 
into  the  vision  because  a  woman  had  to  be  carried  off, 
and  two  women  at  least  were  needed  to  carry  so  heavy  a 
burden  (Keil).  They  rather  typify  instruments  of  evil,  who 
for  a  time  delivered  the  evil  woman  from  the  vengeance  which 
was  about  to  destroy  her.  By  reason  of  the  curse  described 
as  overtaking  all  who  followed  in  her  wicked  ways,  no  place 
was  left  for  her  any  longer  in  the  land  of  righteousness, 
among  a  people  forgiven  for  past  transgression,  and  sancti- 
fied so  as  to  bring  forth  fruit  unto  holiness.  The  winged 
women  therefore  bore  off  the  evil  one  to  the  land  of  Shinar, 
there  to  build  for  her  a  house  and  a  home. 

The  curse  had  been  levelled  specially  against  two  classes  of 
sinners ;  those  who  were  sinning  against  the  first  table  of 
the  law,  violating  their  duty  to  God  by  the  profanation  of 
his  holy  name,  and  also  against  such  as  were  sinning  against 


ItS  ZECHARIAII   and   his   prophecies.       [Ch.  v.  9-II. 

the  second  table,  by  appropriating  as  their  own  that  wliich 
was  not  theirs.  It,  therefore,  does  not  seem  unlikely  that  the 
two  stork-winged  women  were  intended  to  be  personifications 
of  those  sins  which  were  represented  in  combination  by  the 
woman  sitting  in  the  ephah  with  the  weight  of  lead.  Pressel's 
suggestion  may  therefore  be  accepted,  namely,  that  these  two 
women,  who  helped  the  evil  one  to  escape  for  a  time  from 
her  angel-adversary,  symbolize  godlessness  on  the  one  hand, 
and  lawlessness  on  the  other,  the  one  the  sin  that  tramples 
under  foot  the  commandment  relating  to  duty  to  the  Most 
High,  claiming  that  "  our  lips  are  our  own,  who  is  Lord  over 
us  ? "  (Ps.  xii.  4),  the  other  the  transgression  that  disregards 
the  rights  of  a  fellow-man,  by  robbing  him  of  that  which  is 
his. 

In  the  mention  which  is  made  of  the  house  to  be  built  for 
the  evil  one  in  the  land  of  Shinar,  the  vision  does  not  appear 
to  refer  to  the  bygone  days  of  the  captivity  in  Babylon,  nor 
to  any  new  captivity  wherewith  Israel  was  threatened.  The 
picture  is  simply  an  ideal  one.  The  land  of  Shinar  is  an  ideal 
land,  contrasted  with  the  land  of  Israel.  The  former  was  the 
land  of  unhoHness,  the  latter  was  the  holy  land  (chap  ii.  12). 
The  picture  represents  sin  and  transgression  as  removed  from 
the  land  of  Israel,  the  land  of  the  people  of  God,  driven  to 
find  its  resting-place  in  the  land  where  Babylon  had  once  been 
built,  driven  into  the  land  of  the  world-power  which  was  anta- 
gonistic to  God  ;  just  as  Cain  in  earlier  days,  when  forced  by 
his  sin  to  leave  those  who  dwelt  in  the  land  near  Eden,  had  to 
betake  himself  to  the  land  of  Nod,  or  wandering  (Gen.  iv.  16). 

The  division  and  separation  of  the  evil  from  the  good,  which 
is  here  depicted  (as  Keil  observes),  was  most  strikingly  seen 
when  the  Messiah  appeared  among  men.  Then  occurred  the 
great  refining  predicted  by  Malachi  (iii.  1-5).  But  that  process 
of  the  great  Refiner  goes  on  through  all  times  of  the  exten- 
sion and  development  of  the  Church  of  the  Messiah,  whether 


Ch.  V.  9-II.]    SIXTH  VISION — THE  WOMAN  IN  THE  EPHAH.    II9 

that  Church  be  set  up  among  Israel  or  among  the  nations. 
Christ  separated  by  his  words  of  power  between  the  evil  and 
the  good  as  they  existed  in  the  land  of  Israel.  By  holding 
forth  the  truth,  he  drove  with  the  scourge  of  denunciation  the 
hypocritical  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  from  his  spiritual  temple, 
as  he  had  already  driven  the  buyers  and  sellers  out  of  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem  with  the  scourge  of  small  cords  (John 
ii.  15).  He  caused  the  traitor  Judas  to  cut  himself  ofif  from 
the  congregation  of  the  holy  ;  and,  when  the  traitor  had  left 
the  upper  room  where  the  Master  partook  of  the  passover 
feast  with  his  disciples,  Jesus  uttered  those  remarkable  words  : 
"  Now  is  the  Son  of  Man  glorified,  and  God  is  glorified  in 
him"  (John  xiii.  31).  Christ,  who  from  his  throne  in  the 
sanctuary  above  (Mark  xvi.  20)  still  carries  on  his  work, 
compels  by  the  power  of  his  Spirit  many  who  have  tarried  too 
long  in  the  professing  Church,  at  last  to  separate  themselves, 
as  "sensual,  not  having  the  Spirit"  (Jude  19).  They  go  out 
from  us,  because  they  are  not  of  us,  for  if  they  were  of  us 
they  would  no  doubt  continue  with  us,  but  they  go  out  that 
they  may  be  made  manifest  that  they  are  not  all  of  us 
(i  John  ii.  19).  The  picture  in  the  vision  of  Zechariah  has 
received  many  remarkable  fulfilments  in  the  history  of  the 
Church  of  Christ ;  but  we  cannot  agree  with  those  who  think 
that  it  has  a  special  reference  to  events  supposed  to  occur  in 
millennial  days. 

Such  is  the  general  import  of  the  vision  of  the  flying  roll 
and  the  woman  in  the  ephah.  The  latter  figure  does  not  seem 
to  us  to  represent  the  filling  up  of  the  measure  of  iniquity, 
as  has  been  supposed  by  some  commentators.  For,  as 
Kliefoth  has  noted,  no  indication  whatever  is  given  of  such 
a  signification,  nor  is  the  ephah  represented  as  so  full  that 
it  could  contain  nothing  more.  The  filling-up  of  iniquity 
is  not  the  result  of  the  curse  of  God,  but  God's  curse  is 
the    result   of    the    filling-up    of    the    measure   of  iniquity 


I20  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.        [Ch.  v.  9-1 1. 

(Kliefoth).  The  picture  of  the  woman  with  the  ephah  and 
the  talent,  borne  away  by  the  two  stork-winged  women, 
is  a  representation  of  one  of  the  consequences  of  the 
going  forth  of  the  curse.  The  curse  of  God  is  described  as 
meeting  and  destroying  those  individuals  who  venture  to 
continue  in  open  transgression,  and  ultimately  as  leading 
to  the  expulsion  of  sin  itself  with  its  instruments  (false 
measures  and  false  weights)  from  the  midst  of  the  people 
of  God.  The  picture  does  not  (as  Kliefoth  supposes)  delineate 
the  gathering  together  in  a  bushel  of  all  the  individual  seeds 
of  evil  scattered  through  the  world,  so  as  in  the  end  to 
constitute  one  individual  mass  opposed  to  the  Church  of  God, 
The  vision  does  not  depict  the  erection  of  the  kingdom  of 
Antichrist.  In  such  a  case  there  would  be  no  special  signi- 
ficance in  the  introduction  into  it  of  an  ephah,  independently  of 
other  considerations.  In  the  interpretation  already  sketched 
out  (an  interpretation  which  in  its  main  features  coincides 
with  that  of  Pressel),  the  ephah,  the  woman  and  the  talent, 
and  the  other  peculiar  features  of  the  vision,  are  seen  to  be 
peculiarly  appropriate  to  the  object  in  view. 

The  sixth  vision  then  exhibits  an  ideal  picture,  in  advance 
of  that  depicted  in  the  fifth.  It  shows  how  the  curse  of  God 
compels  sin  to  pass  judgment  on  itself,  and  forces  sinners  to  cut 
themselves  off  from  the  land  and  congregation  of  the  Lord. 
The  vision  was  one  peculiarly  applicable  to  the  condition  of 
the  returned  exiles.  It  is  a  parable  whose  teachings  are 
suitable  to  the  Church  in  all  the  various  stages  of  its  history. 
It  is  but  the  outline  of  a  picture  the  details  of  which  will  be 
filled  in  when  "  the  Son  of  man  shall  send  forth  his  angels, 
and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his  kingdom  all  things  that 
offend  and  them  that  do  iniquity"  (Matt.  xiii.  41). 


CHAPTER    V. 


THE  SEVENTH   VISION-  THE  FOUR   CHARIOTS. 


.CHAPTER   V. 


The  two  mountains  of  brass  or  copper,  123 — Importance  of  the  article,  123 — 
Strange  view  of  Hitzig,  123 — The  false  prophet  Elxai,  124 — Mountains  ex- 
plained by  some  as  Zion  and  Moriah,  124— Svedberg's  view  of  the  mountains  of 
Dalarne,  124 — Different  Views,  125 — The  mountains  probably  Zion  and  Mount 
of  Olives  viewed  ideally,  126 — Valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  126 — The  four  chariots, 
126 — Compared  to  the  winds,  127 — Not  the  winds  themselves,  127,  137 — The 
horses  of  the  chariots,  127 — Difficulties  in  the  vision  itself,  127 — Views  of  Hitzig, 
Maurer,  Ewald,  etc.,  127-9 — Hengstenberg  on  the  strong  horses,  129 — Views  of 
Kliefoth  and  Keil,  129 — Objections,  129 — The  strong  and  speckled  steeds,  129 
— Explanations  of  the  chariots  as  Daniel's  four  empires,  130 — Various  explan- 
ations of  the  colours  of  the  horses,  130 — Objections  to  Kliefoth's  view,  131 — 

»  Objections  to  view  of  von  liofmann  and  Volck,  132,  note — The  kingdom  of 
"Antichrist"  not  the  strongest,  132 — Keil's  explanation  of  the  colours  by 
reference  to  Rev.  vi.,  133 — His  attempt  to  meet  the  difficulties  of  the  vision, 
I33~4 — Objections  to  his  view,  134 — Colours  of  horses  in  Zechariah  not  those 
in  Rev.  vi.,  134 — Colours  of  no  symbolical  significance,  135 — Used  to  mark  off" 
one  chariot  from  another,  135 — The  four  empires  and  the  four  chariots,  135 — 
Baumgarten  on  the  number  four,  136,  note — Speckled  and  strong  steeds,  136 
— Difficulties  met,  136 — Signification  of  vision,  137 — The  four  chariots  not  the 
four  winds,  137 — Ewald's  view,  137 — Schegg  on  the  scene  in  general,  138 — 
— The  valley  between  the  mountains,  138 — The  view  presented  to  Zechariah, 
138 — Verse  8  explained,  139 — The  resting  of  the  spirit,  139 — Judgments,  139 
Ewald's  different  view,  140 — Objections,  140 — Objection  to  Pressel's  interpre- 
tation, 140 — Kohler's  view  of  the  last  vision  in  its  relation  to  the  first,  141. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE   SEVENTH   VISION — THE   FOUR   CHARIOTS. 

In  the  seventh  and  last  vision  which  the  prophet  saw  on 
that  eventful  night,  he  beheld  four  chariots  rushing  forth  at 
full  speed  from  between  the  two  mountains  which  constituted 
the  side-scenes  of  the  picture  presented  to  his  view,  and 
which  mountains  the  prophet  noted  were  "mountains  of  brass  " 
or  rather  "  of  copper."  From  a  defile  between  these  moun- 
tains the  chariots  seem  to  have  appeared  rushing  forth  into  a 
plain  (Hitzig). 

The  article  in  the  phrase,  "  between  the  two  mountains," 
has  been  overlooked  in  our  Authorised  Version.  It  is  of  im- 
portance as  indicating  that  the  mountains  were  well  known. 
The  phrase  is  too  definite  to  admit  of  such  general  interpreta- 
tions as  that  of  Hengstenberg,  who  supposes  the  mountains  to 
represent  the  power  of  God  which  shields  and  protects  his  people 
(comp.  Ps.  cxxv.  2),  or  that  of  Baumgarten,  that  they  repre- 
sent the  east  and  west  as  the  two  central  points  of  the  world- 
power,  which  in  Zechariah  are  rather  the  north  and  the  south. 

Inasmuch  as  these  chariots  went  forth  from  standing  before 
the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth,  Hitzig  maintains  that  the  moun- 
tains must  be  regarded  as  near  to  the  dwelling-place  of  the 
Most  High.  In  order  to  illustrate  the  idea  which  he  imagines 
to  be  contained  in  this  passage  of  Zechariah,  of  mountains 
being  regarded  as  near  God's  abode,  Hitzig  adduces  a  state- 
ment from  the  extant  fragments  of  the  pseudo-prophet  Elxai, 
who  lived  in  the  time  of  Trajan.  In  the  passage  referred  to, 
Elxai   asserts    that   he  saw  the  Holy  Ghost  in   female  form 


124  ZECHARIAH   AND    IIIS    rROPHECIES.        [Ch.  vi.  i-8. 

"  above  a  cloud,"  and  "  standing  in  the  midst  of  two  moun- 
tains." But  this  reference  to  Elxai  is  pecuHarly  inappropriate, 
inasmuch  as  in  another  passage  of  the  same  false-prophet,  pre- 
served by  Epiphanius,  it  is  plain  that  Elxai  spoke  of  the  two 
mountains  in  his  pretended  vision  merely  because  they  afforded 
him  some  criterion  from  which  he  was  able  to  calculate  the  size 
of  the  Divine  appearance.^  Hitzig  further  adduces  in  favour 
of  this  idea  a  statement  of  Epiphanius  in  another  place  (Vit. 
Hiercm.),  that  Jeremiah  hid  the  tabernacle  and  ark  of  the 
covenant  "  between  the  two  mountains  between  which  Moses 
and  Aaron  were  buried  "  (comp.  2  Mace.  ii.  4,  5).  This  apo- 
cryphal statement  Hitzig  seeks  further  to  elucidate  by  com- 
paring Rev.  xi.  19,  where  mention  is  made  in  symbolical 
language  of  the  temple  of  God  being  opened  in  heaven  and 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  being  seen,  which  language  Hitzig 
evidently  supposes  the  writer  to  have  regarded  as  the  language 
of  fact  and  not  of  symbol,  in  which  he  is  joined  by  some  of 
our  latter-day  expositors,  who  delight  in  the  marvellous. 

Passing  by  this  learned  trifling  on  the  part  of  Hitzig,  we 
note  that  "  the  two  mountains "  have  been  explained  to  be 
(v.  Hofmann,  Prcssel,  etc.)  the  mountains  of  Zion  and  Moriah. 
Others  have  regarded  them  as  representing  the  place  and 
seat  of  the  theocracy  (Umbreit),  or  as  the  mountains  whence 
God  should  send  forth  his  last  great  judgments  upon  the 
world  (v.  Hofmann).  Others  have  conjectured  that  Mount 
Zion  was  seen  by  the  prophet  as  the  seat  of  David's  throne,  and 
Moriah  as  the  temple  mountain  ;  for  from  these  two  moun- 
tains in  Messianic  days  the  kingdom  of  God  should  be  spread 
abroad  (Prcssel).  The  opinion  of  Jasper  Svedberg,  the  father 
of  the  renowned  Emmanuel  Swedenborg,  may  be  mentioned 
as  a  curiosity  of  exposition,  which  has  a  lesson  for  those  who 
harp    upon  literal    interpretations.     That  scholar  considered 

*  Sec  Ililgcnfcld,  "Elxai  Libii  fiaj;mcnta,"  p.  15S,  appended  to  his  edition  of 
Ilermas  Pastor,  in  his  Noz'ii/n  Testainciitiim  extra  Cation,  rcccpt. 


Ch.  vi.  i-S.]    SEVENTH    VISION — THE    FOUR    CHARIOTS.  12$ 

that  the  prophet  in  speakhig  of  mountains  of  brass  or  copper 
evidently  alkided  to  the  country  of  Dalarne,  in  Sweden,  which 
he  thought  was  destined  to  be  of  great  importance  in  "  the 
latter  days." 

The  chariots  were  not  seen  in  the  vision  to  go  forth  from  the 
mountains,  but  from  a  defile  between  them.  The  statement 
that  they  went  forth  "  from  standing  before  the  Lord  of  the 
whole  earth  "  might  simply  mean  that  the  chariots  went  forth 
to  their  various  destinations  at  the  bidding  of  the  Lord.  For, 
as  Jahaveh  was  the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth,  wherever  the 
chariots  stood  they  in  reality  stood  before  him.  In  the 
vision,  however,  they  must  be  considered  as  coming  forth 
from  some  place  where  the  Divine  presence  was  specially 
manifested.  Though  the  mountains  are  represented  as  "moun- 
tains of  brass,"  and  therefore  in  some  respects  z^^«/ and  not 
real  mountains,  yet  a  distinct  geographical  idea  seems  to  lie 
at  the  foundation  of  the  symbol  (Keil).^ 

An  unsatisfactory  attempt  has  been  made  to  explain  the 
expression  "  mountains  of  brass,"  by  a  reference  to  the 
"brazen  walls"  spoken  of  by  Jeremiah  (i.  i8),  and  to  consider 
them  to  mean  (as  Jerome  imagined)  mountains  which  could 
not  be  ascended,  which  were  so  strong  and  insurmountable 
that  they  could  not  be  destroyed  by  any  length  of  time,  and 
so  firm  that  they  could  not  be  shaken.  Kliefoth  adopts  this 
view ;  but  as  he  considers  the  mountains  to  be  symbols  re- 
spectively of  the  world-power  and  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
he  lays  himself  open  to  the  objection  of  Keil,  that,  if  this  were 
the  meaning,  the  world-power  would  be  represented  as  being 
as  strong  as  the  kingdom  of  God. 

It  is  better  to  regard  the  mountains  in  the  vision  as  referring 

'  It  is  unnatural  to  explain  the  mountains  to  denote  the  kingdom  of  the  world  and 
the  kingdom  of  God.  The  reasons  assigned  to  prove  this  are  insufficient,  viz.,  that 
the  world-power  may  be  referred  to  under  the  symbol  of  a  mountain  in  chap.  iv.  7 
(though  that  is  doubtful),  and  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  likened  to  a  mountain,  or 
rather  to  a  stone  which  became  a  mountain,  in  Daniel  ii.  35. 


126  ZECIIARIAH    AND    HIS    TROPHECIES.        [Ch.  vi.  i-S. 

to  Mount  Zion  and  the  Mount  of  Olives,  viewed  as  ideal  moun- 
tains and  as  the  place  from  whence  God's  judgments  go  forth 
over  the  world.  The  Mount  of  Olives  is  spoken  of  in  that 
character  in  Zech.  xiv.  4,  and  Mount  Zion  is  also  represented 
by  the  prophets  as  a  place  from  which  the  Lord  executes  his 
judgments  (Joel  iv,  16).  Between  these  two  mountains  lies 
the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  which  the  prophet  Joel  describes  as 
the  place  of  judgment  for  the  world  (Joel  iv.  2).  The  valley 
lying  between  the  two  mountains  was  probably  (as  Keil  and 
Pusey  consider)  the  place  from  which  the  chariots  were  seen 
to  go  forth.  They  are  represented  as  going  forth  from  a  place 
situated  between  the  lands  of  the  north  and  south,  i.e.,  from 
Palestine,  and  from  that  place  in  the  holy  land  where  Jahavch 
was  wont  to  display  his  gracious  presence.  Jahaveh's  fire 
was  in  Zion,  his  furnace  in  Jerusalem  (Isa.  xxxi,  9).  From 
Jerusalem  blessings  were  to  go  forth  to  the  nations,  and  from 
it  also  judgments  should  proceed.  "  The  powers  symbolized 
by  the  four  chariots  are  pictured  as  closed  in  on  either  side 
by  these  mountains,  strong  as  brass,  unsurmountable,  un- 
decaying,  in  order  '  that  they  should  not  go  forth  to  other 
lands  to  conquer  until  the  time  should  come,  fixed  by  the 
counsels  of  God,  when  the  gates  should  be  opened  for  their 
going  forth.'  The  mountains  of  brass  may  signify  the  height 
of  the  Divine  wisdom  ordering  this,  and  the  sublimity  of  the 
power  which  putteth  them  in  operation ;  as  the  Psalmist  says, 
'  Thy  righteousness  is  like  the  mountains  of  God  '  (Ps.  xxxvi. 
6.")  (Pusey.) 

The  four  chariots  which  the  prophet  saw  going  forth  from 
between  the  two  mountains  were  probably  war  chariots. 
Kimchi  thinks  that  each  of  them  was  drawn  by  four  horses, 
but  of  this  there  is  no  indication  in  the  passage.  The  notion 
that  the  chariots  were  represented  as  actually  carrying  forth 
the  spirit  of  God  with  heavy  judgments  is  based  upon  a 
mistaken    view   of  an  expression  in    verse    8.     The  chariots 


Ch.  vi.  1-8.]    SEVENTH   VISION — THE   FOUR    CHARIOTS.  12/ 

are  termed  by  the  angel  "the  four  winds  of  the  heavens," 
in  other  words,  they  are  compared  to  the  winds.  God  is  re- 
presented in  the  Psalms  as  using  the  winds  as  his  angels  or 
messengers  (Ps.  civ.  4,  see  Delitzsch),  and  in  Isaiah  as  riding 
upon  a  swift  light  cloud,  driven  with  speed  by  the  wind,  as 
he  went  forth  to  execute  judgment  upon  the  land  of  Egypt 
(Isa.  xix.  i).  He  is  also  spoken  of  as  riding  upon  the  wings 
of  the  wind  (Ps.  xviii.  11),  for  the  stormy  wind,  and  the  east 
wind  fulfil  his  directions  and  perform  his  will  (Ps.  xlviii.  8  ; 
Ps.  cxlviii.  8).  The  four  winds  are  used  by  him  to  scatter  a 
■people  (Jer.  xlix.  36),  and  to  infuse  new  life  into  the  slain 
(Ezek.  xxxvii.  9).  We  shall  see  in  the  sequel  that  the  four 
chariots  cannot  be  regarded  as  actually  representing  the  four 
winds  themselves  (Hitzig,  Kohler). 

The  chariots  were  drawn  by  horses  of  different  colours, 
red,  black,  white,  and  speckled.  The  steeds  of  the  fourth 
chariot  in  verse  3  have  a  further  descriptive  adjective  affixed, 
which  we  must  provisionally  translate  by  "  strong."  This  last 
appellation  has  caused  considerable  perplexity.  In  the  first 
vision,  angelic  riders  are  described  mounted  on  steeds  of 
different  colours,  two  of  which  (the  red  and  white)  re-appear 
in  the  vision  of  the  chariots.  The  words  used  for  the  other 
two  colours  in  this  vision,  as  well  as  the  epithet  we  have  re- 
ferred to,  are  entirely  different  from  those  used  in  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  first  vision. 

Two  difficulties  must  here  be  noticed,  (i)  In  the  explana- 
tion of  the  interpreting  angel  no  allusion  is  made  to  the  first 
chariot,  which  is  drawn  by  the  red  horses  ;  and  (2),  while  the 
fourth  chariot  drawn  by  the  speckled  steeds  is  described  as 
going  forth  on  a  special  mission,  the  "  strong "  horses  (re- 
presented in  verse  3  as  coupled  together  with  the  speckled 
steeds)  are  spoken  of  in  verse  7  as  if  they  belonged  to  a 
different  chariot,  and  as  anxious  to  go  forth  on  a  different 
mission. 


128  ZECIIARIAII    AND    HIS    rROPIIECIES.        [Ch.  vi.  i-8. 

Hitzig  thinks  that  such  difficulties  as  these  (which  he  as- 
cribes to  tlic  carelessness  of  the  writer)  prove  that  the  chariots 
simply  signify  the  winds  of  heaven,  and  that  the  colours  of  the 
steeds  have  no  deeper  significance.  Maurer  and  Ewald  attempt 
to  remove  the  difficulties  by  substituting  in  verse  7  the  "red  " 
horses  in  place  of  the  "strong"  (which  latter  adjective  has 
been  rendered  in  our  Authorised  Version  by  "  the  bay  "),  and 
Maurer  suggests  that  the  different  word  used  in  verse  7 
arose  from  a  blunder  of  an  early  copyist.  On  the  other 
hand,  many  scholars,  from  Bochart  downwards,  have  sup- 
posed that  the  adjective  at  the  end  of  verse  3,  rendered  by 
us  provisionally  as  "  strong,"  is  the  name  of  a  colour,  used 
in  verse  7  as  equivalent  to  the  red  colour  mentioned  in  the 
former  verse.  This  identification,  however,  rests  on  very 
doubtful  grounds.  Moreover,  it  is  a  serious  difficulty  in  the 
way  of  this  explanation  that  the  same  word  would  then  be 
used  in  verse  3  and  verse  7  in  two  totally  different  significa- 
tions; in  the  former  as  an  additional  description  of  the 
"  speckled  "  steeds,  and  in  the  latter  to  denote  the  "  red." 

Hengstenberg  maintains  that  the  word  in  question  can  only 
mean  "strong"  or  "powerful,"  and  that  it  is  used  in  that 
signification  in  verse  3,  not  as  applying  to  the  horses  of  the 
fourth  chariot  as  contrasted  with  those  of  the  other  three, 
but  as  an  adjective  describing  all  the  steeds  equally,  though 
"only  formally  connected  with  the  fourth."  He  maintains 
further,  that  in  verse  7  the  epithet  is  applied  in  a  peculiar 
manner  to  the  horses  of  the  first  chariot,  as  the  strong  among 
the  strong.  But  such  an  exposition,  for  grammatical  reasons, 
(which  cannot  here  be  discussed)  has  been  well  pronounced 
by  Kohlcr  "  impossible."^ 

'  For  in  the  first  case,  if  D"'■VP^?  in  verse  3  were  intended  to  be  referred  to  nil 
the  steeds,  the  phrase  would,  as  Kiihlcr  notes,  have  been  expressed  by  D?3  D*V??X.- 
Secondly,  as  to  Hengstcnbcrg's  argument  that  the  article  in  D^VpSH  in  verse  7  is  to 
be  regarded  as  emphatic,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  all  the  .atljectives  used  in 
reference  to  the  horses  when  first  mentioned  naturally  occur  without  the  article,  but 


Ch.  vi.6,  7-]   SEVENTH   VISION — THE   FOUR   CHARIOTS.  1 29 

On  the  other  hand,  Hofmann,  Khefoth  and  Keil  main- 
tain that  the  chariot  with  the  red  horses  was,  indeed,  for 
special  reasons,  passed  over  without  mention  by  the  interpret- 
ing angel.  They  regard  the  fourth  chariot  represented  in  the 
vision  as  drawn  by  two  teams  of  horses,  the  one  characterised 
as  "  speckled,"  the  other  as  "  strong."  This  latter  idea  is  at- 
tended with  peculiar  difficulties.  According  to  this  view,  the 
same  chariot  must  have  been  seen  by  the  prophet  as  going 
forth  first  with  "  the  speckled  horses  "  towards  the  south 
country,  and  then  going  forth  a  second  time  with  another  set 
of  horses  on  a  more  extensive  tour.  For  one  can  scarcely 
suppose  that  the  last-named  steeds  went  forth  without  being 
yoked  to  a  chariot.  If  such  were  the  only  interpretation  which 
could  be  given  to  the  text  as  it  stands,  we  should  be  driven, 
with  Ewald  and  Maurer,  to  view  the  text  as  corrupt. 

We  agree  with  Keil  and  v.  Hofmann  in  considering  that  for 
certain  reasons  (to  be  afterwards  considered)  the  chariot  drawn 
by  the  red  horses  is  not  specially  referred  to  in  the  exposition 
given  by  the  interpreting  angel.  With  Hengstenberg,  too,  we 
think  that  the  last  adjective  in  verse  3  must  be  rendered 
in  its  well-known  signification  as  "  strong."  In  verse  3,  the 
steeds  of  the  fourth  chariot  are  described  as  not  only 
"speckled  "  in  colour,  but  peculiarly  "strong  "  in  appearance. 
The  speckled  steeds  were  represented  going  forth  as  directed 
into  the  land  of  the  south,  and  then  as  asking  a  further  per- 
mission afterwards  to  traverse  the  whole  world.  The  perfect 
tenses  used  in  verses  6  and  7  are  to  be  regarded  as  condi- 
tioned by  the  participle  in  verse  6,  with  which  the  recital  com- 
mences. They  are,  therefore,  not  to  be  viewed  as  pasts,  but  as 
prophetic  presents.     The  south  was  too  small  a  portion  of  the 

when  spoken  of  by  the  interpreting  angel  are  all  used,  most  naturally,  with  the 
article.  The  use  of  the  article  with  the  adjective  in  verse  7  can  no  more  be  re- 
garded as  emphatic  than  its  use  with  the  black,  the  white,  and  the  speckled.  D''VOX 
is  similarly  used  at  first  without  the  article,  but  when  mentioned  the  second  time 
it  takes  the  article,  just  as  the  other  adjectives. 

K 


I30  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  vi.  6,  7. 

earth  for  the  "  speckled  "  steeds  attached  to  the  fourth  chariot 
to  be  confined  to.  Hence  they  are  represented  as  desiring  a 
further  field  for  their  operations.  Hence,  too,  when  spoken 
of  as  anxious  that  a  wider  sphere  should  be  afforded  to  them, 
they  are  described  by  the  second  adjective  used  in  reference  to 
them  in  verse  3,  that  is,  as  "  the  strong."  And,  inasmuch  as 
they  possessed  this  special  characteristic  in  such  a  marked 
manner,  they  obtained  their  desire,  and  were  sent  forth  to 
trample  down  the  world  under  their  hoofs. 

From  a  date  as  early  as  the  days  of  Jerome,  the  four 
chariots  have  been  interpreted  as  the  four  world-empires  of 
Babylon,  Medo-Persia,  Greece,  and  Rome.  Kimchi  adopted 
this  view,  and  the  opinion  has  recently  found  defenders.  It 
has  often  fallen  into  disrepute  on  account  of  the  fanciful 
reasons  assigned  for  the  colours  of  the  steeds  by  which  the 
four  chariots  were  driven.  These  colours  have  been  often 
explained  as  signifying  the  several  characteristics  of  the  four 
empires  ;  "  red  "  as  denoting  the  Babylonian,  because  it  was 
cruel  and  sanguinary ;  "  black  "  as  designating  the  Medo- 
Persians,  with  special  reference  to  the  edict  of  Ahasuerus 
(Jerome),  and  "the  heavy  lot  inflicted  by  them"  (Pusey), 
inasmuch  as  the  Medo-Persian  empire  had  been  represented  in 
Daniel's  vision  by  a  beast  to  which  it  was  said  "  Arise,  devour 
much  flesh"  (Dan.  vii.  5).  The  "white  "  colour  has  been  sup- 
posed to  indicate  the  Grecian  monarchy,  under  whose  rule  the 
times  of  the  Maccabees  occurred  (Jerome),  or  because  of  the 
wisdom  of  Alexander  the  Great  (Saadiah),  or  on  account  of  his 
benevolence  to  the  Jewish  nation  (Pusey).  The  "  speckled  " 
steeds  have  been  explained  to  denote  the  Romans,  some  of 
whom  were  clement  to  the  Jews,  and  some  were  persecutors 
(Jerome),  or  because  of  their  mingled  character,  so  prominent 
in  the  fourth  empire  of  Daniel  (Pusey).^   Nor  can  Kliefoth's  ex- 

'  Kliefoth's  interpretation   does  not    appear   more   successful.     He   thinks  the 
Babylonian  empire  was    indicated  by  the  colour  "red  "on  account   of   its  saii- 


Ch.  vi.  6,  7.]   SEVENTH   VISION — THE   FOUR   CHARIOTS.  131 

position  of  the  adjectives  "  speckled  and  strong,"  in  reference 
to  the  horses  of  the  fourth  chariot,  be  regarded  otherwise  than 
as  fanciful.  He  explains  the  "  speckled  "  or  "  piebald  "  colour 
to  refer  to  the  mixed  character  of  the  fourth  kingdom,  which 
had  been  represented  by  the  iron  and  clay  intermingled  in 
the  toes  of  the  metallic  image  of  Daniel,  and  even,  as  he 
imagines,  in  the  "two  legs"  of  the  same.^  The  horses  were 
termed  "  strong "  in  his  estimation  "  not  only  because  they 
go  over  the  whole  earth,  but  also  because  the  kingdom  of  Anti- 
christ was  to  arise  from  the  fourth,  who,  according  to  Daniel, 
should  be  mightier  than  any  one  before  him."  It  is  strange 
that  this  scholar  has  not  borne  in  mind  that  the  part  of 
the  metallic  image  which  was  formed  of  iron  and  clay 
represented  an  age  of  decline  in  the  fourth  world-monarchy, 
and  not  an  age  of  strength.  In  that  symbol,  the  Roman 
empire  is  represented  as  strong  in  its  first  stage,  but  as  com- 
paratively weak  and  divided  in  its  second.  The  strength 
of  that  empire,  as  set  forth  in  Daniel,  did  not  consist,  as 
Keil  observes,  in  its  division  into  a  number  of  kingdoms, 
but  in  the  compact  unity  which  it  originally  possessed. 
The  divisions  spoken  of  in  Daniel  were  decided  marks  of  its 
decline.     If  the  "  speckled  and  strong  "  horses  of  Zechariah's 


guinary  character.  Black,  he  says,  was  used  for  the  Medo-Persian  instead  of 
"speckled  "  as  in  the  first  vision,  because  in  a  prophecy  which  refers  not  to  the 
immediate  future,  but  to  far  distant  days,  the  divided  character  of  that  empire  was 
not  necessary  to  be  dwelt  upon.  White  he  regards  as  being  used  for  the  Mace- 
donian empire  for  the  reason  already  given  on  page  19.  His  explanation  of  the 
"  speckled,"  or  "  piebald,"  or  "  spotted  "  horses  in  the  fourth  vision  is  noticed 
above. 

^  With  respect  to  the  two  legs  of  the  metallic  colossus  of  Daniel  iii.,  the  fact 
is  too  often  forgotten  that  if  an  image  be  divided  into  four  parts,  the  legs  of  such  an 
image  would  naturally  constitute  the  fourth  part  of  the  whole.  If,  therefore,  such 
an  image  be  used  as  a  symbol,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  duality  of  the  legs  must 
necessarily  have  any  meaning,  unless  such  be  actually  assigned  to  it.  The  inter- 
preter of  Daniel  is  bound  to  account  for  the  ten  toes,  for  they  are  mentioned  as 
significant,  but  he  is  not  bound  to  assign  any  significance  to  the  ten  fingers  or  the 
duality  of  the  feet,  any  more  than  to  explain  the  eyes,  ears,  nose,  etc.,  for  none  of 
those  parts  are  alluded  to  as  significant  in  the  book  of  Daniel. 


132  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  vi.  6, 7. 

vision  had  any  such  significance,  the  "  strong  "  steeds  should 
have  appeared  in  the  first  rank,  and  the  "  speckled  "  in  the 
second  rank  of  those  steeds  which  were  harnessed  to  the 
Roman  war-chariot.^ 

It  has  been  too  often  assumed  that  the  kingdom  of  Anti- 
christ, supposed  to  be  predicted  by  Daniel,  is  described  by 
that  prophet  as  stronger  and  mightier  than  all  the  kingdoms 
which  preceded  it.  Whatever  its  strength  may  have  been 
represented,  considered  in  relation  to  the  Church  of  God,  the 
second  stage  of  the  fourth  kingdom  in  the  vision  of  the  metallic 
image  is  described  as  the  very  weakest  stage  of  the  last  world- 
monarchy.  Nor  does  the  vision  of  Daniel  vii.  set  forth  any 
other  view;  for  the  description  of  the  fourth  beast  as  "  dreadful 
and  exceeding  strong"  (in  verses  7  and  19)  is  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  last  monarchy  in  its  earliest  stage,  and  is  not 
a  picture  of  that  monarchy  in  its  last  phase.  On  the 
contrary,  even  in  that  chapter  (verse  24),  the  latter  times 
of  that  power  are  represented  as  weak,  so  far  as  material 
strength  is  concerned,  however  violent  its  rage  against  "  the 
saints  of  the  Most  High." 

Keil  seems  to  have  felt  the  fanciful  character  of  the  various 

'  The  efforts  made  to  explain  the  double  adjective  used  concerning  the  horses  of 
the  fourth  chariot,  on  the  supposition  that  that  chariot  meant  the  Roman  empire,  ex- 
hibit a  great  deal  of  ingenuity.  Von  Hofmann  and  Volck  consider  that  the  double 
team  represents  the  Seleucidian  dynasty,  on  the  ground  that,  while  in  Dan.  ii.  and 
vii.  four  kingdoms  are  mentioned,  in  Dan.  viii.,  between  the  third  and  fourth,  a  new 
kingdom  is  spoken  of,  having  a  strange  resemblance  to  the  fourth.  This  kingdom  was 
the  Seleucidian  power,  especially  as  represented  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  Hence 
those  commentators  think  that  the  kingdom  of  the  Seleucidce  is  indicated  by 
the  "  speckled  "  steeds  because  of  its  similarity  in  several  respects  to  the  Roman, 
with  which  it  came  into  contact  in  Egypt.  Kliefoth  has  rightly  objected  to  this 
interpretation,  that  it  would  be  strange  if  a  kingdom  which  is  correctly  described 
in  Dan.  viii.  as  an  offshoot  of  the  Grecian  monarchy,  should  be  represented  in 
Zechariah's  vision  by  steeds  yoked  to  the  Roman  chariot.  If  the  variety  of  ele- 
ments of  which  the  kingdom  of  the  Seleucida;  was  composed  forms  any  just  ground 
for  its  being  depicted  by  "speckled"  steeds,  wc  might  fairly,  as  Keil  remarks, 
expect  the  steeds  harnessed  to  the  Grecian  chariot  to  be  represented  as  steeds  of 
the  same  type.  The  whole  interpretation  of  v.  Hofmann  can  scarcely  be  regarded 
otherwise  than  as  an  exhibition  of  critical  ingenuity. 


Ch.  vi.  6,  7-]    SEVENTH   VISION — THE   FOUR   CHARIOTS.  I  33 

attempts  to  assign  a  symbolical  significance  to  the  colours  of 
these  horses  in  the  vision  of  Zechariah,  based  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  four  empires  of  Daniel  are  referred  to.  He 
has,  therefore,  with  apparent  reluctance  abandoned  that  ex- 
position, and  has  sought  to  explain  those  colours  by  a  refer- 
ence to  the  four  riders  in  the  first  four  seals  of  the  book  of 
the  Revelation.  According  to  this  view,  he  considers  red  as 
the  colour  of  blood,  shadowing  out  war  and  slaughter  ;  black 
to  represent  mourning,  in  consequence  of  sore  judgments 
like  those  detailed  in  the  Revelation  ;  zuhite  to  symbolise 
victory ;  and  the  spotted  or  speckled  steeds  to  correspond  to 
the  pale  horse  ridden  by  Death,  in  the  latter  book.  The 
vision  in  general,  according  to  Keil,  represents  the  chariots 
of  the  Divine  judgments  driven  to  their  allotted  destina- 
tions by  various  spiritual  powers  which  create  commotions  of 
various  kinds  on  the  earth,  the  spirit  which  each  chariot  is 
represented  as  conveying  being  in  each  case  that  termed  in 
Isaiah  iv.  4  "a  spirit  of  judgment,"  which  not  only  annihilates 
what  is  ungodly,  but  strengthens  what  is  godlike  in  the  world. 

In  explanation  of  the  difficulty  caused  by  the  "  red  "  horses 
being  passed  over  in  the  angelic  interpretation,  and  of  the 
"  speckled  and  strong "  steeds  being  divided  from  one  an- 
other (in  verses  6,  7),  as  if  attached  to  two  distinct  chariots 
(while  both  are  mentioned  as  belonging  to  the  fourth  chariot 
in  verse  3),  Keil  submits  the  following  considerations : 

(i)  In  all  the  visions  no  complete  explanation  is  given 
of  all  the  single  points,  but  merely  indications  whereby  the 
general  object  of  the  vision  may  be  discerned.  Thus  he  notes 
that  in  this  vision  the  horses  which  go  forth  to  the  north 
country  are  alone  mentioned  as  bringing  thither  the  spirit  of 
Jahaveh,  though  the  other  chariots  carry  also  with  them  the 
self-same  spirit  to  their  several  allotted  destinations.  We 
shall  presently  see  that  this  idea  of  Keil,  that  the  chariots  are 
represented  as  laden  with  the  spirit,  is  entirely  incorrect. 


134  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  vl.  6, 7. 

(2)  The  second  point  to  which  Kcil  calls  attention  is  of  real 
importance,  namely,  that  the  north  and  the  south,  specified 
as  the  localities  whither  the  chariots  go  forth,  were  the  chief 
seats  of  the  world-power  hostile  to  Israel,  and  represent  that 
power  in  general  (compare  Dan.  xi.,  where  the  kings  of  the 
north  and  south  represent  the  powers  north  and  south  of  the 
Holy  Land).  Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  enemies  of  God's 
people  were  not  confined  to  those  localities,  a  chariot  is 
described  in  Zechariah  as  going  forth  into  all  the  earth. 

(3)  In  the  third  place  Keil  tries  to  account  for  the  want  of 
correspondence  between  the  vision  and  its  interpretation 
(namely,  that  in  the  latter  the  "  red  "  horses  are  omitted,  and 
in  place  of  them  the  "  strong "  horses  are  spoken  of,  which 
are  named  the  "speckled  and  strong"  in  verse  3),  by  ob- 
serving that  it  seemed  of  more  consequence  to  express  the 
thought  that  the  judgments  of  God  in  all  their  full  strength 
were  sent  forth  upon  the  earth,  than  by  any  special  mention 
of  the  red  horses  to  emphasize  the  bloody  nature  of  those 
judgments. 

This  interpretation  is  based  on  the  assumed  correspondence 
of  the  colours  of  the  steeds  in  Zechariah  with  those  men- 
tioned in  the  book  of  the  Revelation.  But  this  is  the  very 
point  where  it  breaks  down.  It  requires  no  small  amount 
of  ingenuity  to  make  out  any  correspondence  whatever  be- 
tween the  Hebrew  w'ord  rendered  "speckled,"  "spotted,"  or 
"  piebald  "  (a  term  applied  to  goats,  as  well  as  to  horses), 
and  the  Greek  'yXwpo'^,  rendered  "pale"  in  our  luiglish 
Version  of  the  book  of  the  Revelation.  This  is  a  point  of 
criticism  which  cannot  be  here  discussed  (sec  crit.  comm.). 
The  reason  assigned  for  the  red  horses  having  been  passed 
over  in  the  interpretation  of  the  angel  is  a  strange  one,  for 
according  to  it  the  chariot  with  the  red  horses  must  have  been 
the  most  remarkable  of  the  four.  Moreover,  we  deny  entirel}- 
that   the   vision    contains   any  such   incongruity,  as   that   the 


Ch.vi.  6,  7-]   SEVENTH   VISION — THE   FOUR   CHARIOTS.  I35 

fourth   chariot    drawn  by   the  spotted   and    strong   horses  is 
divided  into  two  by  the  interpreting  angel. 

The  truth  seems  to  be  that  the  colours  of  the  horses  har- 
nessed to  the  four  chariots,  like  the  colours  of  those  ridden  by 
the  angels  in  the  first  vision,  are  of  no  symbolical  significance. 
The  variety  of  colour,  as  shown  in  our  discussion  of  the  first 
vision,  is  simply  of  importance  as  serving  to  distinguish  one 
chariot  from  another.  In  the  first  vision  three  divisions  of 
celestial  riders  were  thus  distinguished  from  one  another.  In 
this  vision  four  chariots  had  to  be  similarly  distinguished.  As 
horses  are  made  use  of  in  the  symbolism  of  both  visions,  the 
colours  assigned  are  those  commonly  belonging  to  horses. 
But  in  order  to  prevent  any  confusion  of  the  first  and  seventh 
visions,  though  the  common  colours  red  and  white  are  spoken 
of  in  both,  some  special  colours  peculiar  to  each  of  the  two 
visions  are  made  use  of  in  order  to  give  to  each  a  certain  dis- 
tinctive character,  and  thus  to  prevent  •  the  one  vision  from 
being  confounded  with  the  other.  Commentators  of  all  shades 
of  opinion  have  displayed  an  uncommon  amount  of  ingenuity 
in  their  eff*orts  to  assign  symbolical  meanings  to  each  variety 
of  colour;  but  the  very  unnatural  explanations  to  which  they 
have  been  forced  to  have  recourse  tend  to  prove  the  unsound- 
ness of  this  method  of  interpretation. 

With  the  single  exception  that  we  assign  no  symbolical 
meaning  whatever  to  the  colours  of  the  steeds,  we  coincide 
with  the  traditional  interpretation  of  the  vision,  namely,  that 
it  has  a  reference  to  the  four  empires  of  Daniel.  There  is 
nothing  strange  in  the  fact  that  the  same  four  empires,  spoken 
of  twice  or  three  times  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  should  be 
depicted  in  the  visions  of  Zechariah  ;  in  which  the  state  of  the 
Gentile  world  and  its  relation  to  the  people  of  Israel  is  so 
vividly  pourtrayed.  Though  Babylon  had  been  humbled, 
and  its  world-empire  taken  away,  it  was  still  a  state  of  con- 
siderable  importance,   which  gave  no    small  trouble  to  thq 


136  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  vi.  6, 7. 

Medo-Pcrsian  empire  in  the  days  of  Zcchariali.  It  was, 
therefore,  represented  as  one  of  the  war-chariots,  which 
(though  it  had  indeed  been  driven  in  triumph  over  the  land 
and  people  of  Judah)  had  at  the  same  time  prostrated  in  the 
dust  many  of  the  hereditary  foes  of  Israel.  The  Babylonian 
war-chariot  was,  therefore,  for  completeness'  sake,  introduced 
into  the  vision.  But  inasmuch  as  the  day  of  its  real  power  had 
passed  away,  and  it  had  been  supplanted  by  another  empire, 
it  was,  as  Jerome  expresses  it,  "  most  suitably  "  passed  over 
in  the  interpretation  which  is  in  the  main  taken  up  with  what 
was  then  future.^ 

The  steeds  harnessed  to  the  fourth  chariot  are  described  as 
"speckled"  in  colour,  and  as  "  strong  "  in  appearance.  The 
ingenuity  of  scholars  has  been  ineffectually  expended  in  try- 
ing to  make  out  that  the  latter  adjective  denotes  a  colour,  as 
some  colour  would  have  been  naturally  expected  in  the  posi- 
tion in  which  the  word  occurs.  The  conjunction  "and" 
would  also  have  been  expected  between  the  two  adjectives 
"  speckled  and  strong,"  in  place  of  which  the  text  has  only 
"  speckled,  strong."  This  is  a  difficulty,  but  it  is  not  a  serious 
one,  for  such  unevennesses  of  construction  are  not  unfrcqucntly 
found,  and  it  is  clear  from  the  context  that  the  word  "  strong  " 
is  a  description  only  used  in  reference  to  the  "  speckled " 
steeds.  It  does  not  follow  that  the  other  steeds  appeared  to 
the  prophet  to  be  weak.  But  the  vision  of  the  four  chariots 
is  based  upon  that  of  Daniel's  four  empires,  and  it  cannot  be 
forgotten  that  strength  was  predicated  especially  of  the  fourth 

*  It  is  remarkable,  as  Baumgarten  has  noticed,  that  the  number  four  appears 
twice  in  connection  with  tlie  capitals  of  the  two  world-l<ingdoms  mentioned  in 
Gen.  X.  10,  II,  which  respectively  belonged  to  Assyria  and  Babylon.  The  power 
of  Assyria  had  long  passed  away,  but  as  this  number  four  reappeared  in  the 
book  of  Daniel,  it  was  natural  that  the  four  great  militaiy  empires,  the  fate  of 
which  was  so  clearly  interwoven  with  the  history  of  the  Church  of  God,  from  the 
days  of  the  Babylonian  monarchy  even  to  those  of  the  setting  up  of  the  kingdom 
of  Messiah,  should  be  depicted  as  four  war-chariots  driven  by  the  winds,  and 
sweeping  forth  on  their  wild  career  from  the  pass  in  the  mountains. 


Ch.  vi.  7,  S.]   SEVENTH   VISION — THE   FOUR   CHARIOTS.  1 37 

monarchy,  though  its  three  predecessors  were  in  themselves 
strong  and  powerful. 

The  Roman  war-chariot  with  the  "  speckled  "  horses  went 
out  first  into  the  south  country,  i.e.,  towards  the  land  of 
Egypt.  There  was  to  be  its  first  scene  of  action.  There  it 
came  in  collision  with  the  declining  Macedonian  power,  and 
there  it  was  that  it  first  came  into  direct  contact  with  the 
Jewish  nation.  Egypt  was,  however,  too  narrow  a  field 
within  which  to  be  confined  ;  and  hence  this  war-chariot  is 
described  as  seeking  for  a  more  extended  commission.  The 
world  was  then  assigned  to  it  for  its  sphere  of  operation,  and 
in  the  character  of  "  the  strong  "  ones,  the  "speckled  "  horses, 
having  received  the  desired  permission,  went  forth  to  walk  to 
and  fro  through  the  earth. 

Such  appears  to  be  the  only  satisfactory  explanation  of  the 
seventh  and  eighth  verses.  It  explains  the  text  as  it  stands, 
without  any  recourse  being  had  to  conjectural  readings,  un- 
supported by  the  authority  of  MSS.  or  versions. 

The  second  and  third  chariots  are  described  as  going  forth 
into  the  north  country,  or  towards  Babylon,  because  the 
Medo-Persian  war-chariot  went  thither  to  destroy  the  might 
of  Babylon.  Thither  also  went  forth  the  Grecian  chariot 
in  its  turn  to  overthrow  the  Persian  empire,  thus  fulfilling 
Haggai's  prophecy  that  those  nations  should  fall  by  means 
of  one  another. 

Though  the  wind  is  represented  as  used  by  God  as  an 
instrument  in  the  execution  of  his  work  on  earth,  it  is  scarcely 
possible  to  regard  the  four  chariots  of  this  vision  as  simply 
signifying  the  four  winds  of  heaven.  The  statement  in  verse  5 
is  in  opposition  to  such  a  view,  since  persons  and  spirits,  but 
not  winds,  are  spoken  of  as  standing  before  God  (compare 
Job  i.  6,  ii.  i).  Ewald  is,  therefore,  correct  in  explaining  the 
statement,  "  these  are  the  four  winds  of  the  heavens,"  to  mean 
that  the  four  chariots  went  forth  as  swiftly  as  the  four  winds 


138  ZECIIARIAH    AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  vi.  7,  8. 

of  heaven  into  all  the  four  parts  of  the  world,  driven  alonij 
with  the  rapidity  of  lightning,  as  if  the  wind-angels  had  been 
the  charioteers.^ 

Schegg  has  some  instructive  thoughts  upon  the  imagery  of 
the  vision,  which  cast  some  light  on  its  signification.  The 
chariots,  according  to  him,  were  represented  as  standing  in 
the  valley  between  Moriah  and  Zion,  or,  as  we  would  prefer 
to  regard  them,  as  rushing  forth  from  a  defile  apparently 
lying  between  Mount  Zion  and  the  Mount  of  Olives.  The 
valley  of  vision  need  not  be  regarded  as  in  all  respects 
identical  with  the  actual  Valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  places  being 
usually  strangely  modified  when  seen  in  dreams  or  visions, 
even  though  connected  with  some  well-known  localities.  As 
the  mountains  in  this  vision  are  described  as  "mountains 
of  brass,"  though  Mount  Zion  and  Moriah  may  have 
formed  the  ground-work  of  the  vision,  the  mountains  can- 
not be  regarded  as  in  all  points  identical  with  those  two 
actual  mountains,  and  the  valley  may  not  have  been  exactly 
like  the  natural  valley.  The  valley  of  vision  seems  to  have 
had  two  openings,  leading  respectively  towards  the  north  and 
south,  and  along  those  roads  the  chariots  were  seen  sweeping 
in  their  wild  career. 

The  actual  direction  which  the  first  chariot  took  docs 
not  seem  to  have  been  observed  by  the  prophet,  so  rapid 
was  its  progress.  The  second  and  third  chariots  were  per- 
ceived following  one  another,  at  some  definite  interval,  along 
the  road  leading  to  the  north.  The  second  war-chariot,  that 
of  the  Medo-Persians,  was  stated  by  the  angel  to  have  gone 

*  The  chariots  must  represent  something  more  definite  and  distinct  than 
political  storms  and  tempests  sent  forth  into  all  the  quarters  of  the  globe,  and 
specially  towards  the  north  and  south.  We  may  indeed  call  to  mind  the  fact  that 
in  the  book  of  the  Revelation  four  angels  are  represented  as  standing  at  the  four 
corners  of  the  earth,  and  holding  the  four  winds  of  the  earth  in  check  (Rev.  vii.  i). 
But  the  imagery  of  Zechariah  is  by  no  means  identical  with  that  in  the  Revelation. 
For  it  is  evident,  though  the  prophet  saw  the  four  chariots  going  forth  at  the  same 
time,  that  the  mission  of  these  four  chariots  was  not  synchronous  but  successive. 


Ch.vi.  7,8.]   SEVENTH   VISION — THE   FOUR   CHARIOTS.  1 39 

forth  towards  the  north,  that  is  towards  Babylon,  where,  not- 
withstanding the  subjugation  of  the  Babylonian  empire,  there 
remained,  in  the  days  of  the  prophet,  much  to  be  done,  ere 
the  proud  Babylonians  were  content  to  occupy  the  sub- 
ordinate position  allotted  to  them.  The  third  or  Grecian  war- 
chariot  is  represented  not  merely  as  going  "  after  them,"  but, 
as  the  words  imply,  "  to  that  which  is  behind  them,"  i.e.,  to 
the  countries  lying  behind  the  territory  of  Babylon,  which 
countries  were  the  original  home  of  the  empire  of  the  Medo- 
Persians,  whose  power  the  Macedonian  chariot  was  to  overturn 
and  supplant. 

As  the  second  chariot  sped  forth  on  its  way,  the  interpreting 
angel  cried  out  to  the  prophet,  "  These  (horses)  that  are  going 
toward  the  north  country  (i.e.,  the  steeds  of  the  second  or 
Medo-Persian  Avar-chariot)  have  caused  my  spirit  {i.e.,  my 
anger)  to  rest  upon  the  north  country." 

The  phrase,  "  have  caused  my  spirit  to  rest,"  has  been 
variously  explained.  The  phrase  occurs  in  several  other 
passages  (Ezek.  v.  12,  xvi.  42,  xxiv.  13),  with  the  substitution 
of  the  common  word  for  "anger"  in  place  of  "spirit."  But 
as  the  word  "  spirit "  is  often  used  in  the  sense  of  "  anger " 
(Judg.  viii.  3  ;  Eccles.  x.  4  ;  Prov.  xvi.  32),  there  is  no  difficulty 
in  interpreting  the  passage  of  the  anger  of  the  Lord  being 
poured  out  upon  Babylon.  The  wrath  of  God  had  only  been 
partly  executed  by  Cyrus,  but  it  was  more  fully  executed 
by  Darius  Hystaspis  when  he  suppressed  the  serious  at- 
tempts at  insurrection  made  by  the  Babylonians.  That 
wrath  was  poured  out  on  Babylon  also  a  century  later,  when 
a  third  revolt  of  the  Babylonians,  that  against  Xerxes,  was 
crushed.  The  attention  of  the  prophet  was  specially  called 
to  that  event  w^hich  was  of  importance  to  the  people  of 
Israel  in,  or  immediately  after,  his  own  time.  For  if  God's 
fierce  judgment  was  about  to  descend  on  the  province 
of  Babylon,  the  Jews  who   still    loitered  in   Babylon  should 


140  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  vi.  7,8. 

make  haste  to  obey  the  Divine  command,  and  to  flee  from  that 
hand  upon  which  the  Divine  wrath  was  shortly  again  to  be 
poured. 

This  expression  in  verse  8  has,  however,  been  otherwise 
understood,  as  intimating  not  that  the  anger  of  the  Lord,  but 
that  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  should  be  poured  out  upon  the  people 
in  that  land.  Thus  Ewald  translates,  "  They  leave  my  spirit  in 
the  land  of  the  north,"  i.e.,  he  considers  the  prophet  to  predict 
that  the  Israelites  in  Babylon  w'ould,  under  the  influence 
of  the  spirit  of  God,  receive  higher  courage  and  a  purer 
zeal ;  for  the  angels,  whom  the  prophet  saw  carried  along  in 
the  chariots,  would  communicate  to  them  the  spirit  of  Ja- 
haveh.  But  if  the  vision  be  thus  interpreted,  it  becomes  tame 
and  pointless,  and  it  is  impossible  to  assign  any  meaning 
to  some  of  its  most  remarkable  features.  Why,  for  instance, 
should  the  first  chariot  have  been  passed  over  without  men- 
tion by  the  angel .''  That  Ewald  felt  the  force  of  this  difficulty 
is  plain,  from  the  fact  that  to  get  rid  of  it  he  proposed  the 
emendation  of  the  text  which  has  been  already  discussed  (see 
p.  128).  But  that  is  not  the  only  difficulty.  Why  should  the 
Lsraelites  who  dwelt  in  Babylon  be  specially  referred  to  as 
about  to  receive  nobler  courage  and  zeal  ?  Why  should  not 
the  same  blessing  have  been  poured  forth  on  the  Israelites 
dispersed  in  other  parts  of  the  earth  .'' 

Pressel  has,  as  far  as  translation  is  concerned,  adopted 
Ewald's  view  ;  but  he  docs  not  confine  the  passage  to  the 
dispersed  Jews  or  Israelites  in  Babylon.  According  to  his 
view,  God's  judgments  on  the  nations  had  been  sufficiently 
treated  of  in  the  second  and  third  visions.  The  third  vision 
was  especially  intended  to  stir  up  the  exiles  in  Babylon  to 
a  sense  of  their  duty.  The  fourth  and  fifth  visions  describe 
blessings  vouchsafed  to  the  Jewish  Church,  while  in  the  sixth, 
"  wickedness  "  is  described  as  borne  away  in  the  ephah  to  the 
land  of  Shinar.     As  the  present  vision  might  be  supposed  to 


Ch.  vi.7,  S.]   SEVENTH   VISION — THE   FOUR   CHARIOTS.  141 

describe  something  in  advance  of  the  preceding,  Pressel 
imagines  that  it  depicts  the  four  winds  as  let  loose  to  sweep 
away  wickedness  from  every  quarter  under  heaven.  The 
winds  of  God  sweep  away  all  that  is  impure  and  unholy  not 
only  from  the  limits  of  the  Holy  Land,  but  from  the  whole 
earth,  and  therefore  are  specially  let  loose  against  the  land 
where  "  wickedness "  had  dared  to  set  up  her  house  and 
home.  The  winds  were  to  purify  all  the  earth,  so  that  the 
spirit  of  the  living  God  might  rest  in  all  lands,  and  fill  all 
alike  with  his  Divine  being. 

According  to  this  view  the  last  vision  of  Zechariah  was  a 
vision  of  mercy  and  not  one  of  judgment.  But  the  interpre- 
tation does  considerable  violence  to  some  of  the  language  of 
the  prophet,  and  leaves  unexplained  the  most  remarkable 
statements  of  the  vision.  According  to  these,  three  of  the 
chariots  had  a  special  and  distinct  work  assigned  to  them, 
while  the  horses  of  the  fourth  are  represented  as  desiring 
a  larger  sphere  than  that  originally  assigned  to  them.  The 
significance  of  the  four  chariots,  each  drawn  by  horses  of  a 
different  colour,  is  utterly  lost  sight  of  in  this  interpretation  ; 
for  if  only  the  winds  were  signified,  why  should  each  chariot 
be  so  clearly  marked  off",  and  distinguished  from  the  rest  ? 

Kohler  regards  the  seventh  and  last  vision  as  returning  to 
the  point  whence  the  first  started.  In  the  first  vision  the 
nations  of  the  earth  were  represented  as  not  fully  ripe  for 
judgment ;  hence  the  earth  was  quiet  and  still.  In  a  series 
of  visions  God's  special  judgments  on  the  nations  who  had 
trodden  down  his  peculiar  people  are  glanced  at,  while  the 
gathering  of  Israel  and  the  enlargement  of  the  holy  city 
(beyond  such  limits  as  the  returned  exiles  could  have  dared 
to  expect)  are  pointed  out.  The  purification  of  the  Jewish 
Church,  its  sanctification,  and  the  removal  of  "  wickedness  " 
from  its  midst,  are  strikingly  sketched,  even  though  "  wicked- 
ness "  was  permitted  for  a  time  to  have  a  home  in  the  land  where 


142  ZECHx\RIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  vi.  7,  8. 

the  enemies  of  the  Lord's  people  resided.  Lastly,  the  war 
chariots  of  the  several  world-empires  used  to  execute 
God's  righteous  will  in  the  world  are  described.  For  "  He 
maketh  the  wrath  of  man  to  praise  him,"  and  the  king- 
doms of  the  ungodly  are  ever  made  use  of  in  order  to 
do  God's  service.  Thus  the  last  vision  returns  to  the  very 
point  of  the  first.  The  quiet  of  the  earth  is  represented  in 
it  as  broken  up,  while  the  dispersed  of  Israel  are  warned 
that  Jerusalem  Avas  the  place  where  alone  God's  blessing 
could  be  expected,  and  reminded,  therefore,  that  they  should 
return  to  their  land.  God's  wrath  would  soon  be  poured 
out  upon  the  region  of  the  north.  Woe  then  to  those 
exiles  who  were  found  tarrying,  when  the  chariots  of  wrath 
would  sweep  onward  to  that  land  of  their  sojourn,  and  the 
heavy  anger  of  the  Lord  would  descend  again  and  again 
upon  that  Babylon,  which  was  appointed  to  utter  destruction. 


CHAPTER    VI. 


THE    CROWNING    OF    THE    HIGH-PRIEST. 


CHAPTER   VT. 


The  day  after  the  visions,  145 — The  deputation  from  Babylon,  145 — The  reception 
of  gifts  from  exiles  there,  146 — Supposed  scruples  against  their  reception,  146 
— The  prophet  directed  to  make  a  crown  of  silver  and  gold,  146 — The  act  actu- 
ally performed,  147 — "This  day,"  147 — A  crown  or  crowns,  147 — Difterences 
of  opinion  among  critics,  views  of  Ilitzig  and  Ewald,  147 — One  crown  only 
signified,  147 — Why  the  High  Priest  and  not  the  Prince  was  crowned,  148 — 
The  King-priest  of  Ps.  ex.,  148 — The  prediction  respecting  Messiah,  149 — 
The  Branch,  149 — Messiah  to  build  a  temple,  149 — Not  to  complete  the  second 
temple,  150 — ^Joshua  and  the  Messiah,  150 — The  "glory"  or  "majesty"  of 
Messiah,  151 — Royal  dignity,  151 — Opinions  of  critics  on  the  priest  upon  or 
before  his  throne,  15 1-5 — Ewald's  proposed  alterations  of  text,  152 — "The 
counsel  of  peace  between  them  both,"  understood  to  mean  between  Messiah 
as  priest  and  Messiah  as  king,  153, — Objections,  153 — Preferably  understood  to 
signify  between  Messiah  and  Jahaveh,  154 — New  Testament  confirmation  of  this 
view,  155, — Conclusion  as  to  meaning  of  passage,  155 — The  crown  made  by  the 
prophet  deposited  in  the  temple,  155 — The  names  of  the  Jewish  deputies  from 
Babylon,  156,  note — The  strangers  from  among  the  Gentiles,  156 — Closing 
words  of  the  prophet's  address,  157 — Conflicting  opinions,  157. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE   CROWNING   OF   THE   HIGH    PRIEST. 

When  the  eventful  night  during  which  the  prophet  had  seen 
his  seven  visions  was  over,  and  the  morning  of  the  next  day 
dawned,  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Zechariah,  com- 
manding him  to  perform  an  act  in  public,  by  which  the  Divine 
seal  should  be  affixed  to  the  visions  he  had  seen,  and  the 
people  would  be  encouraged  to  go  forward  boldly  in  their 
work,  under  the  conviction  that  the  Divine  blessing  was  cer- 
tain to  rest  on  their  labours. 

Zechariah  was  commanded  to  go  and  take  with  him  certain 
Jews  who  had  just  arrived  from  Babylon  with  gifts  and  offer- 
ings for  the  house  of  the  Lord  in  Jerusalem.  He  was  to  go 
with  these  men  to  the  house  of  Josiah  the  son  of  Zephaniah, 
who  had  hospitably  lodged  this  deputation  from  Babylon, 
and  having  made  a  crown  of  the  gold  and  silver  which  they 
had  brought,  the  prophet  was  to  go  forth  with  the  members  of 
the  deputation  to  Joshua  the  high  priest,  and  to  place  that 
crown  upon  his  head. 

The  expression  "  take  of  the  captivity  "  no  doubt  refers  to 
the  Jews  who  were  still  sojourners  in  the  land  whither  they 
had  been  carried  away  captive.  Ezra  uses  the  expression 
"  the  captivity "  to  denote  the  exiles  who  had  returned  from 
the  land  of  their  exile  to  Jerusalem.  But  such  cannot  be 
meant  here.  The  persons  who  are  named  are  distinctly  men- 
tioned as  having  come  from  Babylon,  and  allusion  is  made 
afterwards  to  that  fact  as  prefiguring  those  people  who  from 
far  countries  should  in  later  times  come  and  build  the  temple 
of  the  Lord. 

L 


r4'3  ZECHARIAII   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.      [Ch.  vi.  lo,  ii. 

The  construction  of  the  Hebrew  is  so  peculiar  that  Hitzig, 
Schegg,  and  others,  have  viewed  the  word  "  take  "  not  as  a 
command  addressed  to  the  prophet  himself,  but  as  a  direction 
given  more  generally  to  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem,  bidding 
them  to  receive  without  scruple  for  the  temple  the  gifts 
sent  by  their  brethren  who  still  tarried  in  the  land  of  exile. 
According  to  this  view,  it  is  supposed  that  the  leaders  of  the 
colony  at  Jerusalem,  who  had  refused  permission  to  the 
Samaritans  to  co-operate  in  the  building  of  the  sacred  edifice, 
had  scruples  as  to  whether  it  was  right  to  accept  gifts  from 
those  whose  continued  sojourn  in  the  land  of  exile  was  a 
transgression  of  the  Divine  command.  On  the  other  hand 
it  is  clear  that  while  the  Jews  refused  altogether  the  prof- 
fered aid  of  the  Samaritans  for  special  reasons,  they  ac- 
cepted, without  any  scruple  whatever,  the  gifts  presented  for 
the  use  of  the  temple  by  heathen  kings,  princes,  and  people 
(Ezra  i.  4,  6,  7,  vi.  4),  not  merely  such  gifts  as  might  have 
been  possibly  viewed  in  the  light  of  a  restitution  of  what  had 
previously  belonged  to  God's  house,  but  also  such  as  had 
never  in  any  sense  belonged  to  that  holy  place  (Ezra  vi.  8- 
10,  vii.  15,  16).  Consequently  they  could  have  had  little 
scruple  in  receiving  from  their  own  people  gifts  for  the  same 
purpose,  whatever  they  might  have  thought  of  their  con- 
tinued disobedience  to  the  Lord's  command,  in  not  returning 
to  the  Holy  Land  and  to  the  cities  of  their  forefathers. 

The  prophet  did  as  he  was  directed,  and  made  the  crown 
which  was  to  be  placed  on  the  high  priest's  head.  Hengsten- 
berg,  indeed,  has  doubts  whether  this  act  commanded  to  be 
done  was  designed  to  be  really  performed  (see  his  Christology, 
vol.  iii.,  note  on  verse  14,  p.  360,  English  transl.).  He  thinks 
that  verse  1 1  tends  rather  to  show  that  this  was  not  the  case, 
"  for  the  prophet  can  hardly  have  been  a  goldsmith,  and  yet  he 
was  ordered  to  make  the  crown."  Hengstenberg,  therefore, 
prefers  to  regard  the  action  as  not  actually  performed,  but  as 


Ch.  vi.  lo,  II.]  THE   CRO  VVNING   OF   THE   HIGH    PRIEST.  I47 

an  act  which,  Hke  these  recorded  in  chap,  xi.,  took  place  only 
within  the  sphere  of  the  spiritual  perception. 

It  seems,  howjver,  to  us  more  natural  to  view  the  act  com- 
manded as  one  actually  performed  in  the  sight  of  the  people. 
The  act  commanded  here  was  totally  different  from  the  acts 
enjoined  in  chap,  xi.,  which  latter  could  not  have  been  actually 
performed.  The  direction  to  make  the  crown  signifies  nothing 
more  than  that  the  prophet,  in  some  way  or  other,  was  to  get 
the  crown  or  crowns  duly  made.  Nor  need  that  command 
have  occasioned  any  considerable  delay.  A  few  hours  were 
all  that  was  needed,  as  the  crown,  or  crowns,  may  have  been 
simple  twisted  wreaths  of  silver  and  gold.  The  expression 
"  this  day "  can  scarcely  signify  anything  else  than  the  day 
succeeding  the  night  in  which  the  prophet  had  seen  the 
visions,  or  possibly  the  day  on  which  the  gifts  from  Babylon 
were  to  be  presented  in  the  temple  (Hitzig).  ^ 

It  has  been  disputed  whether  the  prophet  was  to  make  a| 
crozvn,  or  croivns.  The  word  in  the  original  is  plural.  Hitzig 
maintains  that  at  least  two  crowns,  one  of  silver,  the  otherj 
of  gold,  were  signified,  while  some  explain  the  plurality  ofV 
crowns  as  indicating  the  royal  and  the  priestly  dignity.  But 
the  high  priest  is  never  said  to  have  worn  a  crown,  or  to  have 
had  a  throne.  The  suggestion  of  Ewald  (followed  by  Bunsen) 
that  the  words  "  and  upon  the  head  of  Zerubbabel "  should 
be  inserted  in  verse  11,  which  assumes  that  the  two  crowns 
must  have  been  designed  for  the  two  leaders  of  the  people, 
is  arbitrary,  and  would  necessitate  other  alterations  to  be 
made  in  order  to  make  the  passage  at  all  consistent  with 
itself  But  inasmuch  as  the  passage  simply  states  that  the 
crowns  were  to  be  placed  on  the  head  of  the  high  priest  (no 
mention  being  made  of  Zerubbabel  in  the  entire  passage), 
and  as  the  word  actually  occurs  in  the  plural  elsewhere  to 
denote  a   single    crown  (Job  xxxi,   36),  the    passage  really 

'  On  the  changes  in  the  proper  names  of  the  persons,  see  note  on  page  156. 


148  ZECHARIAH    AND   HIS    PRC'PHECIES.      [Ch.  vi.  11,  12. 

presents  no  difficulty.  The  crown  on  this  occasion  may  have 
consisted  of  several  fillets  of  gold  and  silver,  intertwined 
together  and  arranged  so  as  to  be  fitted  ^or  a  single  head. 
In  Rev.  xix.  9,  12,  many  crowns  are  spoken  of  as  placed  upon 
the  head  of  Christ,  by  which  is  meant  a  diadem,  composed 
of,  or  encircled  with,  many  crowns. 

The  prophet  having  placed  the  crown  of  silver  and  gold 
upon  the  head  of  the  high  priest,  addressed  him  in  the  follow- 
ing words:  "  Behold  the  man,  Branch  (Shoot)  is  his  name,  and 
he  shall  branch  up  {shoot  up)  from  his  place,  and  build  the 
temple  of  Jahaveh,  even  he  shall  bear  majesty,  and  shall  sit 
and  rule  upon  his  throne,  and  he  shall  be  priest  upon  his 
throne,  and  the  counsel  of  peace  shall  be  between  the  two  of 
them,"  or  "  them  both." 

The  high  priest  wore  no  crown  ;  the  crown  placed  upon  his 
head  by  the  prophet  was  however  a  symbol  of  royal  dignity. 
The  high  priest  must  have  been  fully  conscious  that  the  words 
used  by  the  prophet  did  not  refer  to  himself.  For  the 
"  Branch  "  was  the  title  distinctly  given  by  the  prophet  Jere- 
miah to  the  Messiah,  who  was  to  come  of  the  house  of 
David,  to  which  royal  house  the  high  priest  did  not  belong. 
Had  Zerubbabel  been  crowned  instead  of  Joshua  the  high 
priest,  there  might  have  been  ground  afforded  for  some  such 
mistake.  Hence  in  all  probability  the  crown  was  not  placed 
upon  the  head  of  Zerubbabel,  but  upon  that  of  the  high  priest. 
Neither  Zechariah,  the  priest-prophet,  nor  Joshua  the  high 
priest,  could  well  have  been  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  in  Ps.  ex. 
the  Messiah  was  predicted  in  the  character  of  both  king  and 
priest.  And  inasmuch  as  the  high-priestly  office  was  a  t\'pical 
one,  the  high  priest  and  the  people  no  doubt  saw  something 
remarkable  in  the  prophetic  words,  addressed  indeed  to  the 
high  priest,  but  evidently  referring  to  the  Messiah,  accom- 
panied, as  they  were,  b}-  the  symbolical  act  of  crowning  the 
high   priest    with    the  mark  of    royal   dignity.      The    whole 


Ch.  vi  12,13.]     THE   CROWNING   OF   THE   HIGH    PRIEST.  149 

transaction  was  a  s}- mbolico-prophetical  act.  In  the  crowned 
high  priest  addressed  by  the  prophet  of  Jahaveh  in  those 
solemn  words,  a  striking  picture  was  exhibited  before  the 
people  of  the  long-expected  Branch  of  David. 

No  plainer  prophecy  could  have  been  uttered  as  to  the  I 
coming  of  the  Messiah,  or  as  to  the  offices  that  he  was  to 
fill.  Even  those  commentators  who  are  the  least  inclined  to 
admit  definite  Messianic  predictions  have  been  constrained  to 
acknowledge  that  the  Messiah  is  here  spoken  of  The  words 
"and  he  shall  grow  up  from  his  place"  admit  of  no  other 
meaning.  Compare  Exod.  x.  23,  which  is  the  only  other 
passage  where  the  expression  occurs.  ^  The  Messiah,  as  Kohler 
remarks,  is  called  "  the  Branch,"  or  "  Shoot,"  not  because  he 
causes  all  things  to  shoot  up,  but  because  he  himself,  by  the 
Divine  power,  springs  up  from  the  stem  of  David's  tree  when 
at  its  lowest  condition  (comp.  Isa.  xi.  i).  Thus  in  this  signi- 
ficant sentence  the  lowly  origin  of  the  Messiah  on  the  one 
hand,  and  his  royal  dignity  on  the  other,  are  both  not 
obscurely  referred  to. 

The  statement  "  he  shall  build  the  temple  of  the  Lord " 
cannot  refer  to  the  temple  whose  foundation  had  already  been 
laid  by  Zerubbabel  ;  for  the  prophet  had  predicted  that  that 
temple  should  be  completed  by  Zerubbabel  himself,  and, 
therefore,  the  words  must  allude  to  another  building  than 
that  material  edifice.  In  favour  of  the  idea  that  the  literal 
temple  is  meant,  Hitzig  refers  to  verse  15,  where  other 
builders  are  spoken  of  as  building  together  with  Zerubbabel  ; 

^  The  words  cannot  be  rendered  impersonally,  as  Hitzig,  Maurer,  and  others,  fol- 
lowing the  LXX.jVulg.  and  Luther,  render  them,  viz.,  "It  shall  grow  up  under 
him,"  i.e.,  blessings  shall  spring  up  in  his  steps  and  follow  him.  The  similarity 
in  gender  of  the  two  verbs  proves  the  identity  of  their  subject.  Drake,  in  the 
Speaker's  Commentary,  explains  the  text  thus:  "And  he  shall  sprout  forth  from 
under  himself,  i.e.,  send  forth  shoots  as  from  a  parent  stem,  indicating  the  effect 
of  Joshua's  example  upon  his  countrymen  in  inciting  them  to  do  their  duty,  but 
also  in  the  higher  sense  of  the  words,  implying  the  growth  of  all  Christian  holiness 
from  Christ  as  from  the  root-stem."     We  cannot  agree  with  this  exegesis. 


I50  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  vi.  13. 

and  he  further  argues  that  it  is  conceivable  that  the  origi- 
nal edifice  might  be  thought  of  as  enlarged  and  beautified 
by  the  Messiah.  Such  an  idea  would,  however,  scarcely 
be  conveyed  by  the  expressions  here  used.  Moreover,  Haggai 
had  predicted  that  the  house  then  in  course  of  erection  should 
be  filled  with  glory,  so  that  its  glory  would  exceed  the  glory 
of  the  temple  erected  by  Solomon.  The  prophecy,  therefore, 
of  Zechariah  must  needs  refer  to  that  temple  of  which  both 
the  tabernacle  and  the  temple  of  Solomon  were  types,  namely, 
the  Church  or  people  of  the  living  God  (Hos.  viii.  i  ;  Eph.  ii. 
21,  22,  etc.).  For  that  the  Church  is  the  true  temple  of  God 
was  (as  Kohler  remarks)  a  truth  by  no  means  too  deep  to  be 
understood  from  the  Old  Testament  standpoint,  and  one 
which  might  well  have  been  comprehended  by  a  prophet  with 
the  deep  spiritual  insight  of  Zechariah.  That  the  Lord  was 
in  the  midst  of  his  people,  and  that  he  dwelt  not  in  temples 
made  with  hands  was  a  truth  as  old  as  Solomon  (i  Kings  viii. 
27  ;  2  Chron.  ii.  5  ;  Isa.  Ixvi.  i).  The  truth  set  forth  by  the 
prophet  was  that  the  Messiah  should  build  the  spiritual  tem- 
ple, and  that  the  true  Israel  should  be  the  dwelling-place  of 
the  Most  High. 

A  comparison  is  evidently  drawn  in  verse  13  between  the 
Messiah  and  the  high  priest  Joshua.  This  is  denied  by  Keil, 
but  on  insufiicient  grounds.  Kohler  maintains  the  correct  in- 
terpretation. Joshua  was  engaged  about  the  building  of  the 
temple  in  conjunction  with  Zerubbabel.  In  the  prosecution 
of  that  work  the  prophet  Haggai  had  exhorted  him  as  well  as 
Zerubbabel  to  be  strong  and  of  good  courage,  and  to  perse- 
vere in  the  work  (Hag.  ii.  4).  The  building,  however,  of  the 
true  temple  was  to  be  effected  by  a  greater  than  he.  In 
reference  to  that  coming  Branch,  Zechariah  repeats  with 
emphasis,  "And  he  shall  build  the  temple  of  Jahaveh"  (comp. 
the  N^n  in  Gen.  iii.  15  ;  Isa.  liii.  4).  The  emphatic  nature  of 
the  pronoun  is  recognised  by  Ewald.     While  the  brow  of  the 


Ch.  vi.  13.]      THE   CROWNING   OF   THE   HIGH    PRIEST.  151 

high  priest  was  still  encircled  with  the  crown  (which  by 
Divine  command  had  been  placed  upon  it),  Zechariah  was 
further  directed  to  proclaim  with  reference  to  the  great 
Messiah,  "  And  he  {i.e.,  the  Messiah)  shall  bear  the  majesty," 
i.e.,  the  royal  honour  and  glory,  which  was  typified  by  the 
crown  on  the  head  of  the  high  priest,  and  had  been  worn 
by  that  high  priest  only  as  a  type  of  him  who  was  to 
come. 

The  word  translated  "glory"  (liri),  or  "majesty,"  is  often 
used  specially  to  indicate  royal  honours  (Jer.  xxii.  18  ;  Ps.  xxi. 
6;  Dan.  xi.  21).  It  is  employed  also  in  a  variety  of  other 
significations.  The  Messiah  is  said  to  bear  or  carry  the  glory, 
inasmuch  as  glory  is  spoken  of  as  something  which  can  be 
laid  upon  a  person,  and  which,  therefore,  can  be  borne  (Num. 
xxvii.  20;  Dan.  xi.  21  ;  i  Chron.  xxix.  25).  The  word  is  used 
often  (not  to  say  with  Dr.  Pusey,  "  almost  always,")  of  "  the 
special  glory  of  God,"  and  of  that  of  the  king  as  God's  repre- 
sentative. With  the  light  of  the  New  Testament  reflected 
upon  the  prophecies  of  the  Old,  we  may  profitably  compare 
the  many  passages  in  which  the  glory  of  Christ  was  said  to 
have  been  manifested,  as  in  his  first  miracle  at  Cana  of  Galilee 
(John  ii.  11),  and  his  transfiguration  (Luke  ix.  32);  or  in 
which  his  glory  is  spoken  of  as  that  into  which  he  finally 
entered  after  his  suffering  (Luke  xxiv.  26),  when  he  was 
glorified  with  the  glory  which  he  had  with  the  Father  before 
the  world  was  (John  xvii.  5),  which  glory  Isaiah  saw  in  vision 
(John  xii.  41),  and  which  the  Lamb  has  upon  his  throne  (Rev. 
V.  12,  13). 

The  royal  dignity  of  the  Messiah  is  specially  alluded  to  in 
the  next  clause,  "and  he  will  sit  and  rule  upon  his  throne." 
The  expressions  signify  that  the  Messiah  would  be  in  posses- 
sion of  the  honour  and  dignity  of  a  king,  and  would  also 
exercise  the  authority  which  belongs  to  that  dignity.  But  in 
his  case  the  priestly  office  should  be  combined  also  with  the 


152  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    I'KOl'IIECIES.  [Cli.  vi.  13. 

royal  dignity,  for  it  is  further  said,  "and  he  shall  be  a  priest 
upon  his  throne." 

The  latter  clause  has  indeed  been  variously  translated. 
The  Greek  translators  have  rendered  it,  "  and  there  shall  be 
a  priest  upon  his  right  hand;"  Hitzig  and  Stahclin,  "and 
there  will  be  a  priest  upon  his  throne,"  that  is,  at  the  time 
when  the  Branch  of  David  should  possess  the  royal  dig- 
nity, there  would  be  a  priest  who  would  also  sit  upon  his 
throne.  The  pronoun  "  his  "  cannot  well  be  supposed  to  refer 
to  Jahaveh.  It  must  refer  to  the  second  subject,  "  he,"  i.e., 
the  Branch.  The  passage  certainly  does  not  mean  that  the 
Messiah  and  the  high  priest  should  sit  both  together  on  one 
throne.  The  high  priest  is  nowhere  said  to  have  had  a 
throne.  His  duty  (as  Kohlcr  notes)  was  not  to  sit  as  a  king 
on  a  throne,^  but  to  stand  before  Jahaveh,  and  to  do  him 
service  (comp.  Jud.  xx.  28  ;  Deut.  xvii.  12).  Hierc  would  have 
been  nothing  remarkable  in  this  prediction  if  it  onl\-  meant 
that  there  should  be  a  priest  in  the  time  of  the  Messiah  ;  for 
the  congregation  of  God  could  never  be  thought  of  without 
a  priest  to  make  atonement  for  sins.  Ewald  has  ventured  to 
insert  the  name  "Joshua''  in  the  clause,  "and  Joshua  will  be 
a  priest  upon  his  seat,"  which  reading  he  considers  required 
by  the  statement  following,  "and  the  counsel  of  peace  shall 
be  between  them  both."  These  two  persons,  according  to 
Ewald,  can  be  no  other  than  Zcrubbabcl  and  Joshua.  lUit 
no  such  violent  alterations  of  the  text  can  be  accepted,  if  our 
object  be  to  seek  to  understand  the  meaning  designed  by  the 
prophet  himself. 

Ewald's  explanation  of  the  last  clause  as  referring  to 
Zerubbabel  and  Joshua  must,  therefore,  be  rejected.  Nor 
can    even   Ilitzig's    opinion    be    defended,    nameK',    that    the 

'  I  Sam.  iv.  13,  18,  certainly  docs  not  ])iovc  that  tlic  high  jiiicst  had  a  tlirone, 
but  that  he  could  sit  on  a  seat  like  an  ordinary  man,  though  Thenius  considers 
that  Eli  is  represented  sitting  on  a  throne  at  the  outer  door  of  the  sanctuary,  be- 
cause in  I  Sain.  i.  9  he  is  represented  as  sitting  on  his  seat  at  the  inner  iloor. 


Ch.  vi.  13.]      THE   CROWNING   OF   THE   HIGH    PRIEST.  153 

Messiah  and  an  ideal  priest  are  referred  to  in  the  clause, 
"  the  counsel  of  peace  shall  be  between  them  both."  Rosen- 
miiller,  Kliefoth,  and  others  consider  that  the  ofifices  of  priest 
and  king  are  alluded  to.  But  the  phraseology  constrains 
us  to  think  of  persons  and  not  of  abstract  offices  (Hitzig), 
and  it  is  impossible  to  speak  of  a  "  counsel  of  peace  "  between 
two  abstracts  (Kohler).  It  is  more  natural  to  take  the  words 
as  referring  to  the  Messiah  as  priest  and  king,  and  to  regard 
them  as  signifying  that  the  counsel  of  peace  is  to  exist  between 
the  ruler  and  the  priest,  these  two  characters  being  combined 
in  the  person  of  the  Messiah  (Hengstenberg,  v.  Hofmann, 
Umbreit,  Keil).  But  if  this  be  understood  to  mean  that  the 
greatest  unity  and  peace  would  exist  between  the  two  characters 
(as  Umbreit  and  v.  Hofmann  seem  to  suppose), the  clause  would 
be  superfluous.  Kohler,  therefore,  adopts  the  view  advocated 
by  Hengstenberg,  that  the  reference  is  to  the  two  offices  of 
priest  and  king  combined  in  the  person  of  the  Messiah,  and 
that  the  prophecy  speaks  of  a  plan  devised  by  the  Messiah  in 
his  double  character,  whereby  peace  and  salvation  should  be 
secured  for  the  people  of  God.  If  the  combined  efforts  of 
Zerubbabel  and  Joshua  had,  as  Hengstenberg  notes,  been 
already  productive  of  beneficial  results  to  the  people  of  Israel, 
what  might  not  be  expected  when  the  true  High  Priest  and 
King  should  come  to  his  people  and  produce  peace  by  means 
of  the  combination  of  the  two  great  offices  in  his  own  person. 
The  Branch  of  the  Lord  is  thus  described  as  one  who  by 
his  individual  action  as  king  and  priest  should  procure  peace 
for  his  people.  This  fact  agrees  with  the  New  Testament 
statements,  in  which  the  angelic  choirs  are  represented  an- 
nouncing "  peace  on  earth  "  as  one  of  the  results  of  Christ's 
birth;  and  with  our  Lord's  own  words,  "Peace  I  leave  with 
you,  my  peace  I  give  unto  you  "  (John  xiv.  27,  xvi.  33),  the 
full  realization  of  which  blessing  is  exhibited  in  the  final 
vision  of  the  book  of  the  Revelation. 


154  ZFXIIARIAH    AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  vi.  13. 

There  is,  however,  some  harshness  in  this  explanation   of 
the  clause ;  for  the  words  could  not  have  been  so  understood 
by  the  contemporaries  of  the  prophet.     Moreover,  there  is  no 
New    Testament  passage    in   which   a  "counsel  of  peace"  is 
spoken  of  as  devised  and  carried  into  execution  between  Christ 
in  his  office  as  king  and   Christ  regarded   as  the  priest  of 
his  people.     It  is  clear  no  doubt  that  the  pronoun  " /;/j "  in 
the  expression  "his   throne"    is  used  twice  in  verse   13  in 
reference  to   the  Messiah,    and   cannot  well   be   regarded  as 
relating  to  Jahaveh.     The  royal   dignity  of  the  Messiah  is 
specially  referred  to,  inasmuch  as  the  Messiah  as  king  would 
have  power  to  perform  the  work  which  he  had  to  do.     But  the 
fact  that  the  pronoun  in  the  phrase  "  his  throne  "  cannot  refer 
to  Jahaveh,  does  not  prove  that  Jahaveh  cannot  be  one  of  the 
two  persons  alluded  to  at  the  close  of  the  verse.    Two,  and  only 
two  persons  are  referred  to  in  the  verse,  namely,  the  Lord  and 
the  Lord's  Christ  ;  and  many  eminent  scholars,  as  Cocceius, 
Vitringa,  Reuss,  Pusey,  following  Jerome,  have  considered  that 
these  are  the  two  persons  to  whom  reference  is  made  in  the 
clause,  "  the  counsel  of  peace  shall  be  between  them  both." 
The  prophecy,  indeed,  seems  closely  connected  with   Ps.  ex., 
where  a  "  counsel "  between  the  Lord  and  his  Christ  is  plainly 
referred  to,  and  where  the  Messiah  is  depicted  as  king  and 
priest.    This  is  the  natural  meaning,  and  the  way  in  which  the 
words  were  no  doubt  interpreted  by  the  hearers  of  the  prophet 
Zechariah.     The  thought  of  some  ideal  king  and  priest,  who 
would  coincide  in  some  blessed  unity  of  purpose,  would  never 
have  occurred  to  their  minds.     Peace  between  the  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  heads  of  the   nation  was  not  such  an  uncommon 
occurrence  in  Lsrael  as  to  make  such  unity  in  Messianic  times 
a  circumstance  deserving  of  special  mention.     The  priests  and 
kings   of  Israel  and   Judah   were  rarely  at   variance,  though 
contests  between  the  kings  and  the  prophets  were  of  frequent 
occurrence.     Nor  could  the  Jews  have  been  able  to  conceive 


Ch.  vi.  13,  14]  THE   CROWNING   OF   THE   HIGH    PRIEST.  155 

that  the  whole  prophecy  meant  that  the  Messiah  as  king  was 
to  consult  and  devise  a  plan  whereby  peace  and  salvation 
were  to  be  brought  about  by  himself  in  his  priestly  character. 

On  the  other  hand,  frequent  mention  is  made  in  the  New 
Testahient  of  a  blessed  unity  of  design  existing  between 
Christ  and  the  Father  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  salvation 
of  mankind.  Our  Lord  repeatedly  spoke  of  himself  as  having 
come  into  the  world  not  to  do  his  own  will  but  the  will  of  him 
that  sent  him  (John  vi.  38).  That  will  was  the  salvation  of 
his  people  (John  x.  15-18).  The  will  of  the  Father  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  well-known  text,  "  God  so  loved  the  world  that 
he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in 
him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.  For  God 
sent  not  his  Son  into  the  world  to  condemn  the  world,  but 
that  the  world  through  him  might  be  saved  "  (John  iii.  16,  17). 
"  It  pleased  the  Father  that  in  him  should  all  fulness  dwell, 
and  having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross,  by 
him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  himself"  (Col.  i.  19,  20). 

Such  is  the  most  simple  and  unconstrained  meaning  of  the 
passage.  There  is  no  doubt  some  unevenness  of  diction  in 
the  verse  as  thus  interpreted  ;  but  no  serious  difficulty  lies 
in  the  way  of  this  interpretation.  For  both  Jahaveh  and 
the  Messiah  are  distinctly  alluded  to  in  the  verse,  though 
the  Messiah  is  not  mentioned  by  name.  It  is  the  explan- 
ation most  agreeable  to  the  prophetic  psalm  (Ps.  ex.)  which 
seems  to  form  the  basis  of  the  passage,  and  it  is  that  most  in 
accordance  with  the  analogy  of  the  New  Testament  state- 
ments. That  eminent  scholars  have  laboured  hard  to  ascribe 
other  unnatural  interpretations  to  the  passage,  by  which  its 
Messianic  sense  is  obscured,  is  a  fact  which  only  demon- 
strates that  orthodox  theologians  are  not  the  only  persons 
whose  interpretations  of  sacred  Scripture  have  been  warped 
by  prejudice  or  preconceived  opinions. 

The  crown  of  silver  and  gold,  placed  by  the  prophet  upon 


156  ZECIIARIAH   AND    HIS   rROPHECIES.     [Ch.  vi.  14,  15. 

the  head  of  Josluia  the  high  priest,  was  not  long  permitted  to 
rest  upon  his  brow.  The  prophet  was  bidden  to  take  tliat 
crown  and  deposit  it  in  the  temple  as  a  memorial  of  those 
Jews  who  from  a  far  country  had  brought  offerings  for  the 
work  of  the  Lord  at  Jerusalem.  They,  and  their  host,  who 
had  so  warmly  received  those  pilgrims  to  the  holy  city,  were 
to  be  had  in  gracious  remembrance  before  the  Lord.^  There 
may  have  been  something  peculiar  in  the  conduct  and  lives  of 
those  men  which  rendered  them  especially  worthy  of  such 
distinction.  "  Them  that  honour  me,"  saith  the  Lord,  "  I  will 
honour"  (i  Sam.  ii.  30). 

The  real  cause  for  which  the  crowns  were  to  be  deposited 
in  the  temple,  and  hung  up  in  that  sacred  edifice  (a  command 
which  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  was  not  actually  carried 
into  execution),  was  because  the  Jewish  exiles  from  Babylon 
were  types  of  the  strangers  from  among  the  Gentiles  who 
should  hereafter  be  brought  into  the  communit}'  of  the  Lord, 
and  who  should  even  become  builders  in  the  great  spiritual 
temple  whose  foundations  should  be  laid  in  the  holy  city. 
For  the  prophecy  closes  with  the  promise  of  a  glorious  ac- 
cession of  Gentiles  to  the  Jewish  Church,  an  accession  of 
strength  and  power  which  was  to  be  accorded  in  Messianic 
times.  The  conversion  of  the  Gentile  nations,  and  their  in- 
corporation into  the  Covenant  Church,  had  been  plainly 
revealed  to  the  prophet  at  the  close  of  the  third  \-ision.     The 

*  The  variations  which  occur  in  tlie  names  repeated  in  verse  14  are  of  no 
special  significance.  Ilelem  (DTTI)  was  not  a  second  name  for  Ileldai  CITTI),  but 
is  with  far  more  probability  regarded  as  a  mistake  of  an  ancient  copyist,  which 
either  was  not  found  in  the  MS.  which  the  Syriac  translator  used,  or,  if  it  occurred 
in  his  copy,  was  corrected  by  that  early  translator.  The  word  rendered  in  our 
Authorised  Version  as  a  propername,  "  and  to  Hen  the  son  of  Zcphaniah,"  is  better 
rendered  with  Hitzig,  Kwald  and  Kcihler,  "and  for  the  favour,"  i.e.  the  kindli- 
ness and  good  will,  "of  the  son  of  Zcphaniah."  That  is,  the  kind  hospitality 
which  he,  no  doubt  from  love  to  God  as  well  as  to  his  people,  had  exhibited  to- 
wards this  deputation  of  Jcwisli  exiles  from  Babylon,  would  (as  in  tiie  case  of  Gains 
m  the  New  Testament)  in  no  wise  lose  its  reward,  even  in  earthly  honour  and 
esteem  (Matt.  x.  41,  42). 


Ch.  vi.  15-]      THE   CROWNING   OF   THE   HIGH    PRIEST.  1 57 

glorious  promise  is  here  repeated  indifferent  words:  "And 
they  that  are  afar  off  shall  come  and  build  in  the  temple  of 
the  Lord  of  hosts  ;  and  ye  shall  know  that  the  Lord  of  hosts 
hath  sent  me  unto  you."  It  is  scarcely  possible  that  the 
Jewish  "  diaspora"  only  could  have  been  referred  to.  The  pro- 
phecy must  rather  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  prediction 
in  chap,  ii.  11,  and  of  the  earlier  prediction  of  Haggai  (ii.  7). 
The  great  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  may  have  had  this 
prophecy  in  his  view,  when  he  reminded  his  converts  in 
Ephesus,  that  "  now  in  Christ  Jesus  ye  who  sometimes  were 
far  off  have  become  nigh  through  the  blood  of  Christ " 
(Eph.  ii.  13);  and  when  he  set  forth  the  work  of  the  great 
Redeemer  in  those  beautiful  words,  "  He  came  and  preached 
peace  to  you  which  were  afar  off,  and  to  them  that  were  nigh" 
(Eph.  ii.  17).  On  the  other  hand,  St.  Peter  probably  under-  " 
stood  the  similar  expressions  to  which  he  gave  utterance  as 
referring  to  the-dispersed  of  Israel  :  "The  promise  is  to  you 
and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many 
as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call  "  (Acts  ii.  39). 

The  closing  words  of  the  prophecy,  "  and  this  shall  come 
to  pass  if  ye  will  diligently  obey  the  voice  of  the  Lord  your 
God,"  have  sometimes  been  understood  (as  by  Jerome,  Theod. 
and  by  Maurer  among  later  critics)  to  affirm  that  the  fulfil- 
ment of  all  these  promises  was  conditional  on  the  obedience 
of  Israel  to  the  voice  of  their  God.  But  there  is  no  need  thus 
to  interpret  it,  nor  to  suppose  (with  Ewald)  that  the  words 
were  added  by  some  later  copyist  of  the  prophet.  ^ 

'  Neither  need  we  regard  the  words  as  an  abrupt  aposiopesis,  as  Hengsten- 
berg,  "  and  it  will  come  to  pass  if  ye  hearken  to  the  voice  of  the  Lord  your  God 
that  "  For,  as  Kohler  notes,  the  gap  thus  left  would  not  be  naturally  sup- 
plied by  the  people,  as  Hengstenberg  supposes,  by  "Ye  shall  participate  in  all 
these  blessings,  and  the  Messiah  shall  make  atonement  for  you  as  your  high  priest, 
and  promote  your  prosperity  as  your  king."  We  can  see  no  reason  why  the  passage 
should  have  been  left  thus  unfinished.  The  passage  may  be  regarded  (as  Kohler 
views  it)  as  a  warning  that  Israel  could  not  reasonably  expect  the  fulfilment  of 
such  glorious  promises  until  they  should  be  prepared  for  their  reception  by  a 
careful  walking  in  the  ways  of  the  Lord. 


158  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  vi.  15. 

The  passage  is  best  understood  as  Dr.  Pusey  has  explained 
it  :  The  share  of  the  Jews  in  all  these  promises  should  de- 
pend upon  their  faithfulness  to  the  covenant  of  their  God. 
"  None  of  the  wicked  shall  understand,  but  the  wise  shall 
understand  "  (Dan.  xii.  10)  There  is  a  wisdom  which  is  from 
above,  whereby  alone  men  can  understand  and  embrace  the 
truth  of  God.  It  is  this  to  which  the  prophet  Hosea  refers 
when  he  says,  "  Whoso  is  wise  shall  understand  these  things  " 
(Hosea  xiv.  10). 

Thus  were  the  Jews  reminded  that  the  blessed  results  of 
the  coming  of  the  Messiah  would  belong  only  to  those  who 
should  fear  God,  and  seek  to  be  led  in  his  way.  "  The  meek 
will  he  guide  in  judgment,  and  the  meek  will  he  teach  his 
way."  We  may  recall  to  mind  the  words  of  our  Lord  added 
by  him  to  his  gracious  invitation,  "  Come  unto  mc,  all  ye 
that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  )OU  rest," 
namely,  "  Take  my  yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of  me,  for  I  am 
meek  and  lowly  in  heart,  and  ye  shall  find  rest  to  your  souls  " 
(Matt.  xi.  28,  29).  "  As  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave 
he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that 
believe  on  his  name"  (John  i.  12).  Wisdom,  glor}-,  honour, 
peace,  immortality,  eternal  life,  are  the  gifts  bestowed  upon 
believers.  But  to  those  who  do  not  obey  the  truth,  "  indig- 
nation and  wrath,  tribulation  and  distress,  upon  every  .soul 
of  man  that  worketh  evil,  of  the  Jew  first,  and  also  of  the 
Gentile  "  (Rom.  ii.  7-9). 


CHAPTER   VII. 


THE  DEPUTATION  FROM  BETHEL—ADDRESSES  OF 
ZECHARIAH  TO  THE  PEOPLE. 


CHAPTER    VII. 


'['he  seventh  ami  eighth  ehapters,  i6i — Date  of  composition,  i6i — reculiarity  oi 
date,  162 — Difference  of  translation,  162  note — Days  of  fasting  for  national 
calamities,  163  —Fast  of  the  fifth  month,  163 — Note  on  Bar  Kokhab,  164 — 
Position  of  Jews  in  the  fourth  year  of  Darius,  165 — Deputation  from  Bethel,  160 
— Difference  of  translation  of  ch.  vii.  2,  166 — Bethel  and  the  Bethelites,  167 — 
Sharezar  and  Regem-melek,  167,  168,  note — Question  of  deputation,  169 — Why 
confined  to  fast  of  fifth  month,  169 — Answer  of  Jahaveh,  170— The  seven' y 
years,  171 — Fasts  and  feasts  in  God's  sight,  171 — Translation  of  ch.  vii.  7,  172 — 
Duty  of  people  as  regards  fasting,  172 — Fruitlessness  of  former  exhortations,  173 
— The  answer  not  a  direct  reply,  173 — Translation  of  ch.  vii.  9,  174 — The 
refractory  shoulder,  175 — Result  of  hardness  of  heart,  176 — "Passing  through 
and  returning,"  ver.  14,  176 — Wasting  of  the  land,  177 — Second  portion  of 
the  Lord's  reply,  177 — Mis  return  to  Zion,  ch.  viii.  3,  178 — Promised  blessings 
conditional,  179 — ^Jerusalem  a  city  of  truth,  179- Earnestness  among  the  Jews, 
180 — Prophecy  fulfilled,  180 — Boys  and  girls  in  the  streets,  iSi — The  historian 
of  the  Maccabees  on  the  close  of  that  period,  181 — Discussion  of  ch.  viii.  6,  182 
— Recovery  of  the  people,  183 — Israel  to  dwell  in  Jerusalem,  184 — The  Lord 
their  God,  184 — Results  of  obedience  in  the  prophet's  time,  184  — Lnproved 
state  of  Jews,  165-186 — Theseedof  peace,'iS6,  note — Israel  a  blessing  and  a  curse, 
187 — Judah  and  Israel,  187 — Why  the  promises  were  not  more  largely  fulfilleil, 
188 — Warnings  against  lying  and  deceit,  189,  note — Judgment  of  peace,  189 — 
Direct  answer  to  enquiry  of  Bethelites,  190 — Meaning  of  the  answer,  191  — 
Jewish  tradition  on  the  abolition  of  the  fasts,  191 — Accession  of  Gentile  converts, 
192 — Gentiles  keeping  the  feasts,  193— Taking  hold  of  the  skirt  of  a  Jew, 
194 — Honour  bestowed  on  the  Jewish  people,  195. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE   DEPUTATION   FROM   BETHEL — ADDRESSES   OF 
ZECHARIAH   TO   THE   PEOPLE. 

The  portion  of  the  book  of  Zechariah  comprised  in  the/ 
seventh  and  eighth  chapters  consists  of  exhortations  and 
predictions  deHvered  two  years  later  than  the  seven  visions. 
KHefoth  is  of  opinion  that  these  chapters  are  closely  con- 
nected with  those  that  follow  them,  even  up  to  the  close  of 
the  book.  The  last  eight  chapters  of  the  book  are  by  him 
divided  into  seven  sections,  corresponding  to  the  seven 
visions  of  the  earlier  chapters.  But  this  view  is  extremely 
fanciful.  If  it  had  been  the  prophet's  design  to  comprehend 
the  predictions  of  the  second  part  of  his  book  under  seven 
sections,  "  seven  words  of  God,"  it  would  seem  strange  that 
the  first  two  chapters  of  that  part,  which  treat  of  matters 
closely  related  to  one  another,  should  comprehend  four  such 
sections,  while  by  far  the  larger  portion,  and  that  treating 
of  matters  very  diverse  from  one  another,  and,  relatively,  of 
greater  importance,  should  be  comprised  in  three  sections. 
Moreover,  if  chapters  ix.  to  xiv.,  which  are  supposed  by 
Kliefoth  to  form  these  three  sections,  are  to  be  assigned 
to  our  prophet  at  all,  they  must  be  viewed  as  composed  at 
very  different  times,  and  at  a  period,  or  periods,  considerably 
later  than  the  seven  visions,  or  even  than  the  exhortations 
contained  in  these  two  intervening  chapters. 

The  exhortations  and  promises  set  forth  in  the  two  chap- 
ters in  question,  will  be  best  considered  together,  inasmuch 
as  they  were  all  delivered  on  the  same  occasion. 

Their  date  was  the  fourth   year  of  the  reign   of   Darius 

M 


I62  ZECHARIAII    AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  vii.  i. 

Hystaspis.  The  mode  in  which  the  date  is  given  is  some- 
what pecuHar.  Instead  of  the  year,  month,  and  day  of  the 
revelation  being  mentioned  together,  as  is  usual,  the  date  is 
divided  into  two  parts.  The  mention  of  the  year  is  preceded 
by  the  usual  formula,  "  and  it  was,"  i.e.,  "  and  it  came  to 
pass,"  "and  it  was  in  the  fourth  year  of  Darius  the  king  ;" 
while  the  phrase  which  is  specially  used  to  indicate  a  Divine 
revelation  precedes  the  mention  of  the  day  and  month  in 
which  the  communication  took  place.  "  The  word  of  Jahaveh 
was  {i.e.,  came)  to  Zechariah  in  the  fourth  day  of  the  ninth 
month,  in  Kislev." ' 

In  order  to  understand  the  circumstances  which  led  to  the 
revelation  of  the  Divine  will  here  recorded,  and  the  ex- 
hortations founded  on  the  same,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
in  the  Mosaic  law  only  one  single  day  of  fasting  in  the  year 
was  enjoined  on  the  Israelites,  which  day  was,  however,  also 

*  The  words  are  divided  in  this  manner  by  the  traditional  accentuation,  and  the 
accentuation  certainly  seems  to  be  correct,  although  the  collocation  of  the  words  is 
somewhat  unusual.  Keil,  following  up  a  suggestion  put  forward  in  a  rather  hesi- 
tating manner  by  Kohler,  considers  that  the  date  in  the  latter  clause  is  to  be 
connected  with  the  verse  following  (verse  2),  as  otherwise  the  imperfect  with  vav 
conversive  with  which  the  verse  begins  might  be  supposed  to  be  used  in  a  plu- 
perfect signification.  But  the  adoption  of  the  collocation  proposed  by  Keil,  would 
create  a  greater  difficulty,  namely,  the  use  of  such  a  construction  (H^'^'fl)  in 
■  the  middle  of  a  clause  without  any  previous  perfect  tense  with  which  it  could  be 
connected.  Keil's  rendering  is,  "  On  the  fourth  day  of  the  ninth  month,  in  Kislev, 
then  sent  Bethel,"  etc.  But  the  imperfect  with  vav  conv.  which  is  used  in  verse  2 
is  preferal)ly  considered  as  depending  on  the  substantive  verb  H^H  in  the  clause, 
"  the  word  of  Jahaveh  was."  It  need  not  be  rendered  as  a  pluperfect,  but  as  a 
simple  perfect,  as  Hitzig  and  Ewald  translate  it,  "  For  those  of  Bethel  (or,  as  Hitzig, 
"  and  those,"  etc)  namely  Sharezer,  etc.,  sent,"  etc.  Although  no  clear  instances 
can  be  cited  in  which  the  imperfect  with  vav  conv.  is  distinctly  used  in  a  plu- 
perfect signification,  there  are  cases  where  something  like  an  approximation  to 
that  signification  may  be  detected.  It  is,  however,  not  necessary  to  consider  this 
to  be  the  case  here.  The  thought  in  the  writer's  mind  seems  to  have  been  first,  the 
fact  of  the  Divine  revelation  at  the  time  specified,  and  then  the  fact  connected 
therewith,  namely,  that  a  deputation  was  sent  from  Bethel.  The  latter  was 
regarded  by  him  as  a  subordinate  incident,  though  one  closely  related  to  the 
former,  and  most  probably  preceding  it  in  time.  But  the  writer  does  not  view  it 
in  its  chronological  scciucnce  but  in  its  relative  dependence  on  the  other.  See 
Driver's  Hebrew  Tenses,  §  75. 


Ch.vii.  1-30  THE   DEPUTATION    FROM   BETHEL.  163 

a  festival,  namely  the  great  Day  of  Atonement  (Lev.  xxiii. 
26-32).  The  IsraeHtes  were,  however,  in  the  habit  of  observ- 
ing fasts  on  other  days  for  national  calamities  {Jud.  xx.  26  ; 
I  Sam.  vii.  6,  xxxi.  13  ;  Joel  ii.  15,  ff.  ;  Isa.  Iviii.  3-12).  During 
the  captivity  in  Babylon  they  seem  to  have  observed  four 
such  extraordinary  fasts.  These  were  the  fasts  of  the  ninth 
day  of  the  fourth  month,  in  memory  of  the  capture  of  Jeru- 
salem by  the  Chald^eans  (Jer.  Hi.  6,  7)  ;^  the  fast  of  the  fifth 
month  (the  month  Ab),  in  remembrance  of  the  burning  of  the 
temple  and  the  city  (2  Kings  xxv.  8 ;  Jer,  Hi.  12)  ;  the  fast  of 
the  seventh  month,  in  consequence  of  the  murder  of  Gedaliah 
by  Ishmael,  owing  to  which  murder  the  greater  part  of  the 
remnant  of  the  Jews  fled  into  Egypt,  contrary  indeed  to  the 
command  of  God  by  the  prophet  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xH.  43)  ;  and 
the  fast  of  the  tenth  month,  in  memory  of  the  siege  of  Jeru-  - 
salem  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  which  commenced  in  that  month 
(2  Kings  xxv.  I  ;  Jer.  Hi.  4). 

The  fast  of  the  fifth  month  seems  to  have  been  observed  on 
the  tenth  day,  in  remembrance  of  the  destruction  of  the  tem- 
ple by  Nebuchadnezzar  on  that  day.  The  book  of  2  Kings 
and  that  of  Jeremiah  do  not,  however,  agree  as  to  the  day  on  . 
which  the  destruction  of  the  temple  occurred.  The  Talmud 
(Taanith,  29  a),  quoted  by  Lightfoot,  seeks  to  explain  the 
discrepancy  by  stating,  which  is  not  improbable,  that  the 
Chalda;ans  broke  into  the  temple  on  the  seventh  day,  and 

^  On  the  months  in  general  see  crit.  comm.  on  chap.  i.  7.  The  seventeenth  day 
of  the  fourth  month,  or  Tammuz,  was  also  regarded  as  an  unfortunate  day  for 
Israel.  On  that  day,  as  Kohler  observes  (foot  note  on  page  243  of  his  first  vol.  on 
Zech. ),  five  calamities  were  noted  as  having  occurred,  (i)  The  tables  of  the  law 
were  broken  (Exod.  xxxii.)  ;  (2)  The  daily  sacrifice  ceased  in  the  first  temple  on 
account  of  the  want  of  lambs  (comp.  Jer.  lii.  6  ;  Lam.  iv.  9,  10) ;  (3)  The  city  of 
Jerusalem  was  taken  ;  (4)  Apostemus  burned  the  law  ;  and  (5)  the  abomination 
(the  idol  image)  was  set  up  in  the  temple  (Dan.  xi.  31,  xii.  11).  Apostemus  or 
Apostumus  (D1D1DD1DS)  was  a  Roman  governor  in  Palestine  in  the  second 
century.  To  him  was  assigned  the  carrying  out  of  the  persecuting  edicts  of  the 
Emperor  Hadrian,  according  to  which  he  burned  the  rolls  of  the  law  wherever  they 
could  be  found,  and  forbad  its  study  under  the  penalty  of  death. 


1 64  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  vii.  1-3. 

profaned  the  sacred  places  by  revelling  and  debauchery 
during  that  day  and  the  two  days  succeeding.  On  the  even- 
ing of  the  last  day,  the  ninth,  according  to  the  Talmud,  the 
Chalda:ans  set  fire  to  the  sacred  building,  which  was  entirely 
consumed  on  the  tenth  (Lightfoot,  Opera,  ed.  Leusdcn,  tom.  ii, 
p.  139).  The  circumstances  connected  with  the  destruction 
of  the  second  temple  are  said  to  have  been  very  similar. 

The  ninth  day  (and  not  the  tenth)  of  the  fifth  month,  the 
month  Ab  (as  Lightfoot  also  informs  us  on  the  authority  of 
the  Talmud  and  Maimonides),  was  kept  by  the  Jews  as  a 
day  of  special  fasting  on  account  of  five  great  national 
calamities  which  were  reckoned  as  having  occurred  on  that 
particular  day.  (i)  On  that  day  God  resolved  not  to  lead 
the  Israelites,  whom  he  had  brought  out  of  Egypt,  into  the 
promised  land,  but  announced  his  determination  to  let  them 
perish  in  the  wilderness.  (2  and  3)  The  destruction  of  both 
the  first  and  second  temples  occurred  on  that  day.  (4)  It  was 
on  that  day  that  the  storming  of  Bether  took  place  during 
the  revolt  under  Bar-Kokhba,  which  led  to  the  suppression 
of  that    great   Jewish   insurrection.'     (5)  On    that   day   also 

'  Dr.  F.  Lebrecht  has  recently  published  an  interesting  treatise  on  this  memor- 
able event,  "Bether.  Die  fragliche  Stadt  im  Hadrlanisch.  jiidischen  Kriege.  Ein 
lyoojahriges  Missverstandniss."  (Berlin:  A.  Cohn,  1877.)  In  it  Dr.  L.  main- 
tains that  there  was  no  city  or  fortress  of  that  name,  but  that  Bether  is  in  reality  a 
corruption  of  Veter,  a  contraction  for  Castra  Vetera,  the  name  given  to  the  Roman 
fortified  camp  erected  in  the  plain  of  Jezreel,  not  far  from  Sephoris.  He  maintains 
that  Bar-Kozeba  was  the  real  name  of  the  great  Jewish  chieftain,  and  that  he  was 
so  named  from  the  city  Kozeba,  in  Judaea ;  that  Bar-Kokhab  (or  Bar-Cochab,  as 
it  is  generally  written)  was  a  symbolical  appellation,  and  that  the  story  is  untrue 
that  he  was  designated  as  Bar-Kokhab,  the  ^^  Son  of  a  Star,"  in  reference  to  Num. 
xxiv.  17,  and  that  this  name  was  afterwards  changed  to  Bar-Kozeba,  "the  Son  0/ 
a  Lie,'"  as  popularly  believed,  and  stated  even  by  such  authorities  as  Miiman  and 
Ewald.  Dr.  Lebrecht  maintains  that  that  story  was  invented  afterwards  by  the 
enemies  of  that  chieftain.  But  it  is  rather  bold  to  assert,  that  Bar-Kokhba  put 
forth  no  claims  to  be  the  Messiah  in  face  of  the  po'^itive  statements  of  the  Tal- 
mud to  that  effect,  even  though  his  claim  to  that  title  is  not  put  forward  on  the 
coins  struck  by  him.  Some  of  the  coins  sup]X)sed  to  be  his  must  indeed  be  ascribed 
to  Simon  Gioras,  others  are  imitations  by  him  of  the  coins  of  that  chieftain.  See 
M.A.  Levy,  Gesch.  der  jfiiJischen  Miinzen,  and  Madden  (F.  W.),  Jewish  Coinage^ 
pp.  205-210. 


Ch.vii.  I-3.J  THE   DEPUTATION    FROM   BETHEL,  l6$ 

a  ploughshare  was  driven  over  the  foundations  of  the  temple 
(comp.  Mic.  iii.  12  ;  Jer.  xxvi.  18)  by  Titus  Annius  Rufus.^ 

At  the  time  when  the  prophecies  of  the  seventh  and 
eighth  chapters  were  delivered  by  Zechariah,  all  hindrances 
in  the  way  of  the  erection  of  the  temple  had  been  removed- 
Darius  had  issued  a  royal  edict  in  favour  of  the  energetic 
prosecution  of  the  work  (Ezra  vi.),  and  the  rebuilding  of  the 
temple  was,  therefore,  progressing  rapidly.  The  dedication 
of  the  building  occurred  about  two  years  later,  in  the  sixth 
year  of  Darius.  Even  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  notwithstanding 
the  desolation  which  prevailed  in  many  quarters,  and  the 
ruinous  state  of  its  walls,  was  beginning  to  exhibit  signs 
of  an  improved  state  of  things.  Some  fine  private  houses 
had  been  erected  (Hagg.  i.  4),  and  the  question  naturally 
suggested  itself  to  the  minds  of  many  of  the  people,  whether 
the  fasts  and  days  of  mourning  which  had  been  instituted 
on  account  of  the  desolation  of  the  city  and  the  sanctuary 
ought  still  to  be  observed  as  in  the  days  of  distress.  The 
fast  of  the  fifth  month,  in  which  the  ruin  of  the  temple 
used  particularly  to  be  bewailed,  seemed  rather  out  of  place 
now  that  the  temple  was  almost  restored.  The  fast  of  the 
seventh  month,  in  which  the  sad  event  was  bewailed  whereby 
"  the  remnant "  that  had  been  left  in  the  land  were  driven 
to  abandon  the  home  of  their  fathers,  seemed  almost  an 
anachronism  at  a  time  when  several  large  troops  of  exiles 
had  already  returned  to  their  country,  and  when  smaller 
bands  were  from  time  to  time  to  be  seen  returning  from  their 
places  of  exile  to  the  ancient  homes  of  their  race. 

The  minds  of  the  people  must  have  been  much  exercised 
as  to  the  propriety  of  the  continued  observance  of  the  fast  of 

'  The  name  usually  given  in  the  Talmud  is  Turnus  Rufus.  He  was  not  the 
Terentius  Rufus  mentioned  in  Josephus,  A'//.  y«^.  vii.  2,  §  i,  who,  after  the  con- 
quest of  Jerusalem  by  Titus,  completed  the  work  of  desolation.  Jost  [Gesch.  des 
jfudenthums,  ii.  77,  ff.)  gives  the  name  as  above,  and  also  Milman,  Hist.  0/  the 
Jews,  vol.  iii.  p.  377,  4th  ed. 


1 66  ZECIIARIAH   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.        [Ch.  vii.  1-3. 

the  fifth  month,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  prosperous 
re-erection  of  the  temple.  The  colonists  at  Bethel  took  the 
initiative  in  seeking  to  bring  about  a  settlement  of  this 
question,  and  those  in  authority  at  Bethel,  namely,  Sharezer, 
or  Sarezer,'  Regcmmelek,  and  their  men,  sent  a  deputation  to 
Jerusalem  with  two  special  objects  in  view  ;  first,  to  intreat  the 
favour-  of  Jahaveh  for  their  city,  and  secondly,  to  inquire  of 
the  Lord  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  priests  and  the 
prophets  concerning  the  fast  of  the  fifth  month.  It  is  prob- 
able that  the  members  of  the  deputation  were  likewise  com- 
missioned to  present  divers  gifts  for  the  service  of  the  temple 
and  sanctuary  (Exod.  xxiv.  20). 

This  is  evidently  the  meaning  of  verse  2.  The  rendering 
of  our  Engl,  version,  "When  they  had  sent  unto  the  house  of 
God,  Sharezer  and  Regem-melech,  etc.,"  is  certainly  incor- 
rect, though  supported  by  the  Vulgate,  Kimchi,  and  other 
authorities.^  Bethel  is  never  used  to  signify  the  temple  of 
God,  but  must  be  regarded  as  the  proper  name  of  the  well- 
known  city.  So  all  the  ancient  versions  have  rendered  it. 
It  cannot  be  viewed  as  the  proper  name  of  a  man.  Rashi 
and  Kimchi,  probably  led  by  the  analogy  of  the  deputation 
mentioned    in    chapter    vi.,    have    considered    Sarezer,    and 

'  See  note  on  p.  168. 

-The  phrase  'D  \3Q  n?n  seems  properly  to  signify  to  j/r^j-f^  M^y^r^  (  =  mulcere 
faciem),  hence  to  intn-al  favour.  It  is  used  of  intreatinglhe  favour  of  the  rich  with 
gifts  in  Job  xi.  19  ;  Prov.  xix.  6  ;  Ps.  xlv.  13  (ver.  12,  E.  V.),  and  is  often  used 
with  reference  to  God.  Dr.  Pusey  objects  to  this  explanation,  but  on  insufficient 
grounds.     It  is  not  clear  what  he  takes  to  be  the  original  meaning  of  the  phrase. 

^  .Such  as  Grotius,  Dathe,  Rosenmiiller,  etc.  Schegg  follows  the  Vulgate  in  his 
I  ranslation,  though  his  note  would  lead  us  to  expect  the  other  rendering.  The 
temple  is  always  called  "the  house  of  Jahaveh,"  niiT'  fl'D,  or  D^n^S  n'2,  but 
never  ?X  TV2.  Grammatically  the  name  might  be  regarded  as  an  accusative  of 
place,  and  so  those  scholars  have  thought  who  have  translated  it  by  "the  house 
of  God."  So  the  LXX.  and  Syr.  (see  crit.  comm.)  have  taken  it,  as  well  as  the 
Targ. ,  which  translates  "to  Bethel,"  which  is  against  the  whole  tenor  of  the 
context,  though  it  is  incorrect  to  say  that  in  such  a  case  a  preposition  must  have 
been  used  before  the  name.  Maurer  considers  the  "house  of  God  "  to  denote  the 
family  of  God,  the  people  of  the  Jews  ;  but  this  is  contrary  to  usage. 


Ch.vii.  1-3-]  THE   DEPUTATION    FROM   BETHEL.  167 

Regem-melek,  to  be  the  names  of  deputies  sent  by  the 
Jews  Hving  in  Babylon.  The  passage,  however,  must  be 
rendered,  "  And  Bethel,  that  is,  Sarezer,  Regem-melek,  and 
their  men,"  that  is,  those  who  were  associated  with  them 
(comp.  2  Sam.  ii.  3  ^),  "  sent  to  intreat  Jahaveh,  saying  {i.e.,  with 
directions  to  say)  to  the  priests  who  belonged  to  the  house  of 
Jahaveh  of  hosts,  and  to  the  prophets,  saying,"  etc.^ 

Sarezer  and  Regem-melek  were  the  senders,  and  not  the 
persons  who  were  sent.  These  names  are  to  be  regarded 
as  standing  in  apposition  to  Bethel,  as  the  names  of 
the  principal  men  in  that  city.  Had  Zechariah  desired  to 
specify  those  individuals  as  the  members  of  the  deputation, 
he  would  scarcely  have  omitted  here  to  use  the  particle 
{'r\Vi),  which  in  such  cases  indicates  the  accusative  (compare, 
as  Hitzig  has  noted,  the  very  similar  passage  in  Jer.  xxvi.  22). 
Keil,  indeed,  regards  this  apposition  as  so  harsh,  that,  not- 
withstanding the  omission  of  the  particle,  he  prefers  to  con- 
sider the  persons  named  as  the  members  of  the  deputation. 
But  the  view  of  the  passage  which  we  have  given  is  that 
approved  by  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Kohler,  etc.  No  valid  objection 
can  be  made  to  it. 

The  town  of  Bethel  was  given  to  Benjamin  by  Joshua 
(Josh.  xvii.  11-13,  22).  It  belonged  later  to  the  kingdom  of 
Israel.  A  considerable  number  of  the  descendants  of  the  old 
inhabitants  appear  to  have  returned  thither  (Ezra  ii.  28  ; 
Neh.  vii.  32,  xi.  31),  and  that  city,  as  well  as  others,  seems  to 
have  been  rebuilt.  There  must  have  been  among  those 
commonly  reputed  to  be  "  children  of  Benjamin  "  some  of  the 
descendants  of  those  who  inhabited  the  city  when  it  was  the 

*  Wellhausen  {Der  Text  der  Biicher  Samudis  untcrsucht),  however,  prefers  the 
reading  of  the  LXX.  in  that  place. 

2  It  is  harsh  to  regard  the  verb  as  the  indeterminate  third  person  singular,  and 
to  render  "  one  sent."  Moreover,  the  objections  noted  above  seem  decisive 
against  this  rendering.  The  masculine  form  of  the  verb  may  be  viewed  as  a 
constriutio  ad  sensum. 


l6S  ZECHARIAH    AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.        [Ch.  vii.  1-3. 

chief  sanctuary  of  the  northern  kingdom  of  Israel.  The  city 
itself  frequently  changed  hands  during  the  civil  wars  between 
Israel  and  Judah.  But  in  no  case  does  it  appear  that  the 
old  inhabitants  were  expelled  from  their  possessions,  so  that 
it  is  natural  to  conclude  that,  though  reckoned  later  as  "  chil- 
dren of  Benjamin,"  all  the  inhabitants  of  Bethel  did  not 
belong  to  that  tribe. 

It  is,  therefore,  interesting  to  observe  that  the  lessons 
taught  by  the  Babylonish  and  Assyrian  captivities  were  not 
lost  upon  the  men  of  Bethel.  Notwithstanding  the  many 
sacred  memories  connected  with  their  city,  and  the  fact  that 
it  had  been  the  seat  of  a  remarkable  temple  erected  to 
Jahaveh  in  the  days  of  the  Israelitish  kingdom,  to  which 
the  tribes  of  Israel  had  resorted  in  numbers,  no  attempt 
was  made  on  their  part  to  dispute  the  legitimate  right  to 
Jerusalem  being  regarded  as  the  only  place  where  the 
sacrifices  and  services  enjoined  by  the  precepts  of  the  Mosaic 
law  could  be  offered.  The  erection  of  a  sanctuary  in  Bethel, 
and  the  setting  up  there  of  one  of  the  golden  calves,  had 
been  one  of  the  great  sins  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat, 
who  made  Israel  to  sin. 

The  chief  men  of  the  community  at  Bethel  seem  to  have 
retained  the  names  which  they  had  borne  in  the  land  of  their 
captivity.^     They  sent  to  inquire  of  the  priests,  as  persons 

'  Sarezer,  or  Sharezer,  was  the  name  of  one  of  the  sons  of  Sennacherib,  who 
assisted  in  the  murder  of  his  father  (Isa.  xxxvii.  38  ;  2  Kings  xix.  37).  The  name 
is  in  Assyrian  Sar-usur,  contracted  from  Asur  (Bil,  Nirgal)-sar-usur,  i.e.,  "May 
Asur,"  Bel,  or  Nergal,  Assyrian  gods,  "protect  the  king."  See  Schrader,  Die 
Keilinschriften  und  das  Alte  Test.,  p.  206.  The  name  of  Nergal- Sharezer  occurs 
as  that  of  one  of  the  princes  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in  Jer.  xxxix.  3,  13.  Baer  in  his 
critical  editions  of  Isaiah  (Leipzig,  1872),  and  of  the  Minor  Prophets  (187S),  has 
on  the  authority  of  MSS.,  edited  'b*  (Sarezer)  in  place  of  '^  (Sharezer).  Regem- 
melek  is  explained  by  Gesenius  as  signifying  '■^friend  of  the  king.'^  It  may  have 
been  also  an  Assyrian  name,  though  the  first  part  of  the  compound  has  not  been 
found  in  that  language,  but  iias  been  explained  from  the  Arabic.  Furst  explains  the 
name  as  Gesenius,  but  considers  that  Jahaveh  is  tlie  king  referred  to.  Compare 
the  name  Malkiah,  "  Jah  is  /cinq"  (l  Chron.  vi.  25,  E.V.  verse  40,  ix.  12),  and 
the  use  of  Ilam-melek  as  a  proper  name  in  Jer.  xxxviii.  6,  xxxvi.  36.    It  is  worthy 


Ch.  vii.  3.]  THE   DEPUTATION    FROM   BETHEL.  169 

through  whom  the  Divine  will  was  ordinarily  made  known 
(Deut.  xxxiii.  8-10  ;  Hag.  ii.  11  ;  Mai.  ii.  7) ;  and  the  priests 
are  spoken  of  as  belonging  to  the  temple  of  Jahaveh,  because 
they  had  to  perform  the  services  of  the  sanctuary,  and  were 
originally  set  apart  for  that  purpose  in  place  of  the  first- 
born males  of  each  family  in  Israel  (Num.  iii.  41  ;  Deut. 
X.  8,  9).  It  was  quite  natural  that  directions  should  have  been 
given  to  the  members  of  the  deputation  to  consult  also  the 
prophets  Haggai  and  Zechariah  upon  this  matter. 

The  question  which  the  deputation  were  instructed  to  pro- 
pound to  the  priests  and  prophets,  in  order  that  they  might 
inquire  of  the  Lord  for  them,  was,  "  Shall  I  (the  city  of 
Bethel,  or  the  inhabitants  thereof)  weep  in  the  fifth  month, 
using  abstinence  as  I  have  done,  for  how  many  years  !  "  ^ 
In  other  words,  they  desired  to  know  whether  the  solemn  fast 
and  lamentation  observed  in  the  tenth  day  of  the  fifth  month 
should  yet  be  continued  as  it  had  been  during  the  seventy 
years  of  exile  (verse  4).  Though  the  deputation  arrived  in 
Jerusalem  in  the  ninth  month,  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  they 
asked  no  questions  respecting  the  observance  of  the  fast  in 
the  tenth  month,  Hitzig  thinks  that  the  reason  for  this 
was  that  the  decision  given  in  the  one  case  would  be  con- 
sidered as  deciding  all  the  other  cases.  It  is  more  likely, 
however,  that  the  inquiry  was  confined  to  the  fast  of  the 
fifth  month,  because  that  fast  had  special  reference  to  the 
desolation  of  the  temple,  while  the  fast  of  the  tenth  month 
was  a  fast  for  the  general  ruin  brought  on  the  land  by  the 

of  note  that  the  Syriac  and  the  Arabic  versions,  which  latter  generally  agrees  with 
the  LXX.,  have  in  this  place  Rab-mag  (Jer.  xxxix.  8)  in  place  of  Regem-melek. 
Rab-mag  is  probably  equivalent  to  the  Assyr.  rubu-  imga,  chief  priest  (Schrader, 
p.  275).  But  this  latter  explanation  is  still  disputed.  The  rendering  of  the  LXX. 
in  our  passage  is  unintelligible  ;  see  crit.  comm. 

'  On  the  use  of  the  pronoun  of  the  first  pers.  sing.  comp.  chap.  viii.  21 ;  Num. 
XX.  18,  19  ;  Josh.  ix.  7  ;  i  Sam.  v.  10,  11  ;  2  Sam.  xx.  19.  Public  and  private 
fasting  and  mourning  was  generally  accompanied  with  weeping.  Comp.  Jud. 
XX.  26  ;  I  Sam.  i.  7  ;  2  Sam.  i.  12  ;  Ezra  x.  i  ;  Neh.  i.  4 ;  etc. 


I70  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  vii.  3. 

siege  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Chaldjeans.  Though  the  temple 
might  be  considered  as  virtually  restored,  the  desolation  of 
the  land,  and  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem  in  particular,  could 
not  yet  be  considered  at  an  end.  Hence  while  the  people 
might  have  thought  it  right  that  the  one  fast  should  be  dis- 
continued, they  might  not  have  even  contemplated  the  discon- 
tinuance of  the  other. 

The  inquiry  of  the  inhabitants  of  Bethel  was,  as  Kohler 
observes,  based  upon  the  supposition  that  such  solemn  fasts 
on  account  of  national  calamities,  which  had  been  occasioned 
by  national  sins,  were  in  themselves  pleasing  to  God,  but 
that  fasts  might  no  longer  be  acceptable,  since  God's  favour 
was  again  restored  to  the  people,  as  was  proved  by  the  resto- 
ration of  the  temple  and  its  worship.  The  inquiry  was  in 
itself  a  prayer  that  the  Lord  would  graciously  continue  to 
bless  the  work  of  restoration,  so  happily  begun,  and  that  he 
would  grant  to  Israel  the  glory  which  had  been  promised  by 
the  prophets.  The  question  then  was  in  some  respects  similar 
to  that  asked  by  the  apostles  of  the  Lord  after  his  resurrection, 
"  Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore  again  the  kingdom  to 
Israel  ?  "  (Acts  i.  6). 

The  answer  which  the  Lord  graciously  vouchsafed  to  Zecha- 
riah  in  reply  to  the  inquiry  of  the  men  of  Bethel,  or  possibly 
in  anticipation  thereof  (compare  the  answer  given  to  the 
wife  of  Jeroboam  as  recorded  in  i  Kings  xiv.),  was  addressed 
not  merely  to  the  inhabitants  of  Bethel,  but  "  to  all  the 
people  of  the  land  and  to  the  priests."  The  answer  concerned 
all  alike,  and  the  question  asked  by  the  city  of  Bethel  was  no 
doubt  a  question  asked  generally  throughout  the  land. 

The  answer  of  the  Lord  falls  naturally  into  two  parts,  first, 
that  contained  in  chapter  vii.  from  verse  5  to  the  end,  and 
secondly,  the  portion  which  is  comprehended  in  the  following 
chapter.  These  two  portions  in  turn  are  subdivided  severally 
into  two  portions,   each   marked  by  the   use  of  the  formula 


Ch.vii.4-6.]    ADDRESSES  OF  ZECHARIAH  TO  THE  PEOPLE.       171 

"  then  came  the  word  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts  unto  me,"  or  its 
equivalent  (chaps,  vii.  4,  vii.  8,  viii.  i,  viii.  18). 

The  captivity  in  Babylon  had  lasted  seventy  years,  as  pre- 
dicted by  the  prophet  Jeremiah  (see  p.  22).  Seventy  years 
had  also,  as  Schegg  observes,  elapsed  since  the  murder  of 
Gedaliah  had  consummated  the  afflictions  of  the  people.  For 
the  murder  of  Gedaliah  occurred  in  B.C.  587,  and  the  year 
when  the  deputation  came  to  Jerusalem  was  the  fourth  year 
of  Darius,  or  B.C.  518.  Reference,  perhaps,  is  made  to  this 
fact  in  the  answer  of  Jahaveh. 

That  answer  was  virtually  contained  in  the  question  which 
the  Lord  put  to  the  people.  It  struck  at  the  root  of  a 
great  deal  of  the  false  notions  held  respecting  such  fasts. 
"  When  you  fasted  and  mourned  in  the  fifth  and  in  the  seventh, 
month,  even  now  seventy  years,  have  you  then  fasted  me  ?  " 
that  is,  did  you  constrain  me  ,by  your  fasting  .''  "or  when 
you  eat,  and  when  you  drink,  are  not  ye  the  persons  who 
eat,  and  ye  they  who  drink .-' "  In  other  words,  was  the 
Lord  constrained  to  do  anything  because  of  your  fasting  } 
Had  his  people's  fasts  any  effect  on  him  ?  Or  did  their 
feasting  benefit  God  .-* 

To  bring  out  into  bold  relief  the  truth  that  fasts  and  feasts 
are  a  matter  of  total  indifference  in  God's  sight,  and  that  both 
must  be  judged  by  their  effect  upon  those  persons  whom 
they  immediately  concern,  the  prophet  boldly  combines  the 
intransitive  verb  with  an  object,  as  if  it  were  transitive. 
The  expression  must  not  be  toned  down,  as  is  done  in 
our  A.V.  as  if  it  merely  signified,  "  Did  ye  at  all  fast  unto 
me,  even  to  me  .-' "  Gesenius,  indeed,  thus  understood  the 
words,  and  the  rendering  is  no  doubt  possible  (see  Ges.  Gr. 
§  121,  4),  but  the  passage  as  so  translated  is  far  less  emphatic 
than  as  rendered  above,  after  Ewald  (see  Ewald's  Aiisf. 
Lehrb.  §  315  b,  and  compare  Dan.  v.  6).  The  sense  of  the 
reply  was,  fasting  is  neither  enjoined  nor  forbidden  by  God.. 


172  ZECIIARIAH   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  vii.  7. 

It  may  be  used  when  found  profitable  to  the  individuals  who 
employ  that  means  of  drawing  nigh  unto  God,  or  as  a  means 
of  self-discipline.  Men  are  neither  better  in  God's  sight  by 
fasting,  nor  are  they  the  worse  for  feasting.  If  the  latter 
be  found  injurious  to  their  growth  in  spiritual  things,  they 
ought  to  abstain  from  it  ;  if  the  former  be  beneficial,  it  may 
be  had  recourse  to.  But  both  alike  are  to  be  judged  from 
their  effects  upon  the  character  of  individuals. 

The  verse  that  follows  this  question  (verse  7)  can  be  ex- 
plained as  in  our  A.V.,  "should  ye  not  hear  the  words  which 
the  Lord  hath  cried  by  the  former  prophets  .-'  "  or  "  should  ye 
not  do  the  words  which  the  Lord,"  etc.  (Maurer)  ;  or  it  may 
be  understood,  as  Ewald  and  Kohler  prefer,  "  Do  ye  not 
know  the  words  which  the  Lord  hath  cried,  etc."  The  trans- 
lation "  are  not  these  the  w^ords,"  etc.,  which  is  found  in  the 
LXX.  Syr.  and  Vulg.,  and  is  defended  by  Rosenmiillcr  and 
others  is,  however,  also  defensible.^ 

The  prophet  was  further  instructed  to  point  out  to  the 
people  that  their  real  duty  consisted  not  so  much  in  the 
observance  of  such  fast  days  as  those  concerning  which  they 

'  It  has  been  doubted  whether  the  "flS  which  precedes  D''"lZnn  can  be  regarded 
as  a  sign  of  the  nominative,  as  Rosenmiiller  thinks,  and  which  is  considered  possible 
in  some  cases  by  Gesenius  (Gr.  §  117,  foot-note).  The  passage  in  Hag.  ii.  17, 
referred  to  by  Gesenius,  where  DDnS'pN  occurs,  is  regarded  by  Ewald  as  a  proof 
that  the  suflixcs  attached  to  C*  and  pK  were  regarded  as  verbal  suffixes,  and 
hence  the  suffix  in  the  case  in  question  is  resolved  into  the  accusative  (Ewald,  §262  d). 
The  various  passages  adduced  by  Rosenmiiller  and  others  in  support  of  their  view 
are  discussed  by  Ewald  in  §  277  d.  Several  of  the  instances  assigned  by  Gesenius 
arc  set  aside  by  Kautzsch  in  his  last  edition  of  Gesenius'  Grammar,  in  the  foot  note 
alluded  to,  although  Kautzsch  regards  Hag.  ii.  17  and  Dan.  L\.  13  as  proofs  of  the 
usage.  Bottcher,  Lihrb.  §513,  considers  that  in  some  cases  the  particle  is  used 
with  the  nominative  of  the  subject,  not  only  in  cases  where  the  subject  almost 
assumes  the  position  of  an  object,  as  in  Josh.  xxii.  17  ;  2  Sam.  xi.  25,  etc.,  but  also 
in  other  cases  where  special  prominence  is  given  to  a  word,  as  with  a  personal 
passive,  in  2  Kings  xviii.  30,  etc.,  and  even  with  an  active  verb,  2  Kings  vi.  5- 
That  the  particle  can  express  another  case  than  the  accusative  is  now  generally 
admitted.  See  the  last  edition  of  Gesenius'  /Fi'^Vtv/v/t// by  Miihlau  and  V'olck, 
and  also  the  note  communicated  by  Fleischer  in  Bottcher,  §  514,  see  also  our  note 
on  chap.  viii.  17, 


Ch.  vii.  7.]   ADDRESSES  OF  ZECHARIAH  TO  THE  PEOPLE.  1 73 

inquired,  as  in  the  observance  of  the  common  and  ordinary- 
duties  of  which  their  fathers  had  been  so  repeatedly  reminded 
by  the  prophets  in  former  days.  Reference  is  here  made 
not  so  much  to  the  passages  of  the  prophets  in  which  fasting 
is  specially  referred  to,  as  Isa.  Iviii.  3-8,  or  Joel  iii.  12,  13,  as 
to  those  numerous  passages  in  which  the  general  principle 
is  taught  which  was  enunciated  by  Samuel  in  his  question, 
"  Hath  the  Lord  as  great  delight  in  burnt  offerings  and 
sacrifices  as  in  obeying  the  voice  of  the  Lord.''"  (i  Sam. 
XV.  22,  23),  or  as  set  forth  in  the  words  of  the  great  law- 
giver, "  And  now,  Israel,  what  doth  the  Lord  thy  God  re- 
quire of  thee,  but  to  fear  the  Lord  thy  God,  to  walk  in  his 
ways,  and  to  love  him,  and  to  serve  the  Lord  thy  God 
with  all  thy  heart  and  with  all  thy  soul,  to  keep  the  com- 
mandments of  the  Lord  and  his  statutes,  which  I  command 
thee  this  day  for  thy  good  "  (Deut.  x.  12,  13). 

The  people  were  reminded  that  similar  exhortations  had 
been  delivered  by  the  former  prophets  in  the  days  of  pros- 
perity when  the  nation  was  at  peace.  They  had,  however,  been 
urged  in  vain,  "  when  Jerusalem  was  dwelt  in,  and  was  safe, 
and  her  cities  round  about  her,  and  the  south  and  the  lowland 
was  inhabited."  ^  The  three  districts  named  were  those  into 
which  the  territory  of  Judah  was  divided,  the  south  or  the 
country,  extending  to  Beersheba  (Joshua  xv.  21,  ff.) ;  the  low- 
land, or  the  Shephelah  (Josh.  xv.  33,  ff. ;  SecprjXd,  i  Mace.  xii. 
38) ;  and  the  "  hill  country  of  Judah  "  (Luke  i.  39),  which  is 
here  included  under  "  Jerusalem  and  the  cities  round  about." 

The  answer  of  the    Lord  was  not  a  direct  reply  to  the 

^  Owing  to  the  adjective  which  follows  JIQC^''  in  this  verse  (verss  7),  and  is  con- 
nected by  the  conjunction  "and,"  we  must  render  the  participle  here  intransitively. 
If,  however,  we  were  to  regard  the  phrase  HvEi^l  merely  as  a  further  definition  of 
the  manner  of  dwelling,  we  might  render  the  verb  actively,  and  express  the  ad- 
jective by  an  adverb,  "  when  Jerusalem  was  dwelling  safely,  and  her  cities  round 
about  her  and  the  south  and  the  lowland  dwelling  (similarly)."  Chambers  has, 
no  doubt  accidentally,  misrepresented  Kohler,  who  does  not  propose  to  supply 
ntDpk^*1  from  chap.  i.  11.     He  merely  compares  that  passage  with  this  in  ch.  vii.  7. 


174  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  vii.  7-9. 

questions  asked  by  the  men  of  Ik-thcl.  Its  purport  was  how- 
ever plain.  Its  meaning  was  evidently  as  follows.  You  have  no 
need  to  abrogate  specially  the  observance  of  the  days  in  which 
you  call  to  mind  the  calamities  that  the  sins  of  your  fathers 
brought  upon  the  land.  Those  fasts,  however,  are  not  to  be 
regarded  as  meritorious  in  themselves.  They  are  to  be  judged 
by  the  effect  they  produce  on  yourselves,  and  by  that  alone. 
The  duty  of  obedience  to  God's  law,  urged  by  the  prophets  of 
old  upon  your  ancestors,  is  the  great  duty  which  must  also  be 
pressed  upon  you.  Their  neglect  of  common  obedience  was 
the  cause  of  the  desolations  lamented  over  by  you,  their 
children. 

Such  was  the  reply  which  Zechariah  was  commissioned  to 
return  to  the  people.  He  shortly  after  received  directions  to 
add  a  further  explanation  of  the  Divine  answer.  Accordingly 
in  verse  8  the  formula  is  met  with,  "  the  word  of  Jahaveh  came 
to  Zechariah."  ^  We  translate  "  so  spake," — for,  as  there  is  a 
clear  reference  to  the  days  of  old,  the  perfect  must  here  be 
rendered  as  a  past  tense, — "  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  saying,  judge  ye 
judgment  of  truth  "  (see  Ezek.  xviii.  8,  where  the  same  phrase 
occurs),  that  is,  judgment  agreeing  with  the  truth  in  all  things, 
without  any  respect  of  persons  or  partiality."  "  Show  mercy," 
or  "kindness,  and  compassion  each  to  his  brother."  The  first 
term  indicates  kindness  and  love  in  general,  the  second  kind- 
ness exhibited  in  the  form  of  compassion  and  sympathy  to- 

'  The  sliglit  change  which  occurs  in  this  passage  from  the  usual  superscription, 
"  the  word  of  Jahaveh  came  unto  me,"  to  "  the  word  of  Jaiiaveii  came  to  Zcclia- 
riali,"  must  not  be  pressedas  if  it  had  any  peculiar  significance.  Still  less  are  we 
to  imagine,  as  Schmieder  and  Schlier,  as  quoted  by  Kohler,  seem  to  have  done, 
that  an  earlier  prophet  Zechariah  is  here  quoted  by  the  post-exilian  prophet. 
Schlier  does  not  adopt  this  view  in  his  second  revised  edition  ;  he  may  however 
have  done  so  in  his  first. 

2  Many  exhortations  to  this  effect  are  contained  in  the  law  anil  the  prophets,  as 
Exod.  .xxii.  20,  ff.  (verse  21,  flf.  in  E.V,),  xxiii.  6-9;  Lev.  xix.  15-18;  Deut.  x. 
18,  19,  xxiv.  14,  etc.  But  the  passages  which  were  especially  in  the  mind  of  the 
prophet  seem  to  have  been  Jer.  vii.  5-7,  and  xxii.  3-5.  Compare,  too,  Jer.  xxxiv. 
8  17  on  the  injustice  done  by  the  Jews  to  their  brethren  in  that  prophet's  own 
day. 


Ch.  vii.  9-12]  ADDRESSES  OF  ZECHARIAH  TO  THE  PEOPLE.        175 

wards  the  afflicted  and  distressed.  The  latter  was  especially- 
enjoined  in  the  case  of  the  "  widow  and  orphan,  stranger  and 
wretched,"  or  "  poor."  This  injunction  had  often  been  given 
in  the  law  as  well  as  by  the  prophets  of  old,  and  many  a 
warning  was  given  against  acts  of  oppression  or  wrong  done 
to  such  individuals.  The  general  rule  here  assigned  for 
human  conduct  had  also  often  before  been  given  in  its  es- 
sence, namely,  "  do  not  imagine  ye  evil  against  each  one's 
brother  in  your  hearts,"  i.e.,  "each  one  against  his  brother  in 
your  hearts."  ^ 

Such  exhortations  in  bygone  days,  as  the  Lord  states,  had 
been  unsuccessful.  The  people  refused  to  listen,  though 
prophet  after  prophet  was  sent  to  them.  They  were  a  stiff- 
necked  generation.  They  gave  a  refractory  shoulder,  which 
is  the  literal  meaning  of  the  phrase  in  verse  11  (it  occurs 
again  in  Neh.  ix.  29),  that  is,  they  shook  off  the  yoke 
which  was  sought  to  be  laid  upon  them  as  if  they  had  been 
a  refractory  heifer  struggling  with  all  its  might  against  the 
yoke  laid  upon  it  (comp.  Hos.  iv.  16).  They  hardened  their 
ears,  lit.  made  them  heavy,  an  expression  used  also  of  the 
heart  (Exod.  ix.  7).^  They  made  their  hearts  hard  as  a 
diamond,  so  they  could  not  hear  the  law  in  which  Jahaveh's 

^  In  the  phrase  VHX  K'''N  ni^"!  (chap. vii.  10)  the  Ei'''N  is  to  be  regarded  as  in  the 
genitive,  just  as  the  VPIX  following,  to  which  it  stands  in  apposition.  Compare 
Gen.  ix.  5  and  our  note  there,  also  Delitzsch  on  that  passage  in  the  fourth  edition 
of  his  Comm.  on  Genesis.  On  the  construction  here,  see  Ewald,  §  301  b.  K'''K 
stands  frequently  for  the  pronoun  each,  see  on  this  construction  in  general  Ges. 
s  124,  2,  rem.  i,  Kalisch,  §  82,  9.  Neumann  is  certainly  incorrect  in  his  rendering 
and  explanation,  which  I  prefer  to  give  in  his  own  words :  "  was  einem  Manne  un- 
heilvoU  ist,  was  boser  Gesinnung  gegen  ihn  Zeugniss  (Ei'''K  nn),  das  denke  sein 
Nachster  nimmer,  das  denket  ihr  alle,  deren  Jeder  ihm  der  Nachste,  nimmer, 
Keiner  des  Andern  Unheil,  Ps.  xxv.  4,  xli.  8."  Pressel  defends  the  translation 
of  the  LXX.,  as  if  ^'^\^  could  be  nominative,  /cat  KaKiav  eKacrros  toO  6.d€X(pov  avrov  /mt) 
fivTicTiKaKeiTO}  K.  T.  X.  But  this  is  surely  incorrect.  Drake,  in  the  Speaker's 
CtJwwtvz/ary,  suggests  as  the  translation,  "Ye  shall  not  each  one  meditate  upon 
his  brother's  sin  in  your  hearts,  i.e.,  keep  it  in  remembrance."  But  this  translation 
is  too  artificial  and  does  not  suit  the  context. 

'  One  slow  of  speech  is  also  called  heavy  of  tongue  (Exod.  iv.  10).  The  eyes 
are  likewise  said  to  be  heavy  (Gen.  xlviii.  10)  as  through  age. 


176  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROniECIES.         fCh.  vii.  13,  14. 

commands  were  written,^  nor  the  words  which  Jahavch  of 
hosts  sent  through  his  Spirit  by  the  instrumentality  of  the 
former  prophets  (comp.  Neh.  ix.  30). 

The  result  of  such  hardness  of  heart  was  as  had  been 
foretold  by  the  prophets.  As  Jahaveh's  professing  people 
would  not  hearken  to  the  voice  of  the  Lord  their  God,  and 
did  not  walk  in  his  ways,  there  was  great  wrath  against  them 
from  the  Lord  of  hosts.  When,  therefore,  in  their  distress 
and  difficulties  they  cried  unto  the  Lord,  he  would  not  hear 
their  cry.  The  Lord's  solemn  resolution  to  abandon  them  to 
the  fruit  of  their  own  ways  is  here  expressed  (verses  13  and  14). 
"  So  they  shall  cry  and  I  will  not  hear  them,  said  Jahaveh  of 
hosts,"  the  perfect  tense  here  again  referring  to  the  past  as 
in  verse  8,  "  for  I  will  toss  them  over  all  the  nations  which 
they  knew  not,  -  and  the  land  shall  be  desolate  after  them,  so 
that  there  shall  be  no  one  passing  through  or  returning,"  that 
is,  no  one  passing  to  and  fro  therein,  or  no  one  of  them  going 
to  and  fro  in  the  land.^ 

We  have  rendered   the   perfect   in    the    last   clause  by  the 


'  Hitzig  translates  here  "  the  doctrine  and  the  words,"  referring  both  to  the 
teaching  of  the  prophets.  But  it  is  more  natural  to  regard  the  law  and  its  com- 
mands as  being  referred  to  under  the  first  expression  (miDn). 

2  So  the  Hebrews  were  wont  to  designate  barbarous  people  (see  Deut.  xxviii.  33). 
To  what  critics  can  Chambers  refer,  when  he  says  in  his  note  on  this  passage,  "  I 
prefer  the  rendering  tvhotn  they  know  not  of  the  E.V. ,  following  the  LXX.,  to  the 
other  %vho  kncno  not  them,  adopted  by  most  critics  after  the  Vulgate  "  ?  But  the 
Vulg.  is  :  "  et  dispersi  cos  per  omnia  regna  quae  nesciunt." 

2  The  preposition  jD  has  here  a  negative  force.  The  identical  phrase  which 
occurs  here  is  also  found,  together  with  the  same  preposition,  in  chap.  ix.  8.  The 
meaning  is  that  there  would  be  no  one  going  to  and  fro  in  the  land,  The  context 
alone  can  decide  the  object  for  which  the  persons  are  regarded  as  going  to  and  fro. 
The  expression  seems  here  to  be  used  of  the  people  of  the  land  travelling  up  and 
down  in  their  country,  and  so  in  Ezek.  xxxv.  7,  where  the  Lord  threatens  to  cut 
off  from  Mount  Seir  3t^'||  "l?y.  It  cannot  then  mean  going  to  and  fro  to  plunder, 
as  Fiirst  suggests  in  his  Wiirtcrbuch.  The  sense  of  the  phrase  is  more  defined,  but 
still  not  defined  with  any  precision,  in  Zech.  ix.  8.  See  our  remarks  on  that  pas- 
sage. In  Exod.  xxxii.  27,  it  is  used  (-n-l"')  •'l"l?y)  in  the  command  to  the  Leviles 
to  go  right  through  the  camp  of  Israel  and  slay  all  those  they  should  meet  in  their 
path. 


Ch.  viii.  1-3.]     ADDRESSES  OF  ZECHARIAH  TO  THE  PEOPLE.      1 77 

future  ("  shall  be  desolate  "),  viewing  it  as  the  perfect  of  pro- 
testation and  assurance  (Ges.  §  126,  4),  almost  the  prophetic 
perfect,  used  to  indicate  the  certainty  of  the  accomplishment 
of  the  denunciation.  The  wasting  of  the  land  is  viewed 
by  Jahaveh  in  his  denunciation  as  already  an  accomplished 
fact,  so  clearly  did  he  foresee  the  sin  of  the  people  and  its 
fatal  consequences.  Umbreit  and  Ewald  regard  the  words  of 
Jahaveh  as  closing  with  "  nations  which  they  knew  not,"  in 
which  case  the  clause  should  be  rendered  "  and  the  land  was 
waste  after  them,"  that  is,  it  would  express  the  historical  result 
of  the  Divine  threatening.  This  latter  was  evidently  the  view 
taken  by  the  punctuators,  and  hence  they  placed  the  leading 
disjunctive  (athnach)  in  the  verse  at  the  end  of  the  clause  in 
question. 

The  words  with  which  the  seventh  chapter  closes,  "and 
they  made  the  pleasant  land  (Jer.  iii.  19  ;  Ps.  cvi.  24  ;  comp. 
Ezek.  xxvi.  12)  a  desolation,"  are  to  be  regarded  as  a  remark 
of  the  prophet  himself.  The  verb,  however,  may  be  viewed 
as  the  indeterminate  3rd  pers.  plural,  in  which  case  the 
sense  would  be  almost  equivalent  to  "so  the  pleasant  land 
was  made  desolate  "  (so  Maurer,  Ewald,  etc.)  ;  or  the  person 
of  the  verb  may  be  regarded  as  chosen  with  special  refer- 
ence to  the  disobedient  Israelites,  or  Jews,  "so  they  made  the 
land  a  desolation,"  thus  intimating  that  the  ruin  of  their 
cities  and  country  was  to  be  directly  ascribed  to  the  sin  and 
folly  of  the  people  themselves  (Hitzig,  Kohler,  Pusey,  etc.). 

The  second  portion  of  the  Lord's  reply  is  given  in  the 
eighth  chapter,  and  is  divided  by  the  superscriptions,  which 
occur  in  the  first  and  eighteenth  verses,  into  two  portions  of 
unequal  length  (verses  i-i 7  and  verses  18-23). 

In  accordance  with  the  gracious  statement  which  occurs  in 
the  first  chapter,  the  Lord  describes  his  zeal  for  Zion,  and  his 
anger  against  her  foes  (comp.  chap.  i.  14,  15).  The  promises 
set  forth  are  announced  as  the  very  words  of  Jahaveh,  be- 

N 


J/S  ZECHARIAII   AND   IIIS    PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  viii.  2,  3. 

cause,  according  to  Jerome,  had  they  been  declared  on  the 
prophet's  own  authority,  they  might  have  been  considered  too 
good  to  be  beheved.  This  reason,  however,  can  scarcely  be 
considered  satisfactory. 

After  a  general  statement  of  Jahaveh's  zeal  for  his  people, 
and  of  his  anger  against  their  adversaries,  the  prophet  was 
commissioned  to  give  an  assurance  of  the  Lord's  return  to 
Zion,  and  of  his  determination  to  dwell  in  her  midst  (verse  3). 
When  Jerusalem  was  to  be  given  up  into  the  hands  of  her 
enemies,  the  glory  of  the  Lord  was  seen  by  the  prophet 
Ezekiel  gradually  withdrawing  itself  from  the  temple  in 
which  it  was  wont  to  be  manifested,  until  it  utterly  departed 
therefrom.     (Ezek.  viii.  3,  4,  ix.  3,  x.  4,  18,  19,  xi.  22,  23.) 

The  perfect  tenses  in  verses  2  and  3  are  best  considered  as 
simple  presents  (as  Ewald  and  Pressel  regard  them).^  The 
jealousy  and  zeal  of  Jahaveh  on  behalf  of  his  people  (Ph), 
and  his  anger  against  their  enemies,  are  regarded  as  facts 
actually  in  existence,  as  the  manifest  allusion  to  the  earlier 
chapter  (i.  14,  15)  proves.  The  gracious  return  of  Jahaveh  to 
his  people  and  his  sojourn  in  their  midst  were  facts  actually 
accomplished,  even  though  the  temple  building  was  not  yet 
completed.  If  the  Lord  had  abandoned  Jerusalem  in  anger 
when  she  was  delivered  into  the  hand  of  her  foes,  the 
mercies  already  vouchsafed  to  the  restored  exiles,  and  the 
})rovidcntial  interferences  whereby  the  rebuilding  of  the 
temple  was  enabled  to  be  carried  on  without  let  or  hindrance, 
as  well  as  the  fact  that  prophets  had  been  raised  up  among 
the  people,  were  all  so  many  clear  proofs  of  the  return  of 
Jahaveh  to  his  people. 

Though  Keil  is  inclined  to  view  this  passage  as  a  promise 
of  Messianic  days,  no  evidence  can  be  adduced  in   support 

*  Keil  considers  them  as  prophetic  perfects  used  with  reference  to  the  far  distant 
future,  while  Koliler  regards  them  as  having  a  reference  to  events  near  at  hand. 
Both  scholars,  though  they  explain  the  verbs  differently,  render  them  as  presents. 


Ch.  viii.  3.]  ADDRESSES  OF  ZECHARIAH  TO  THE  PEOPLE.  179 

of  this  opinion.  The  promise  of  the  dwelling  of  Jahaveh 
with  his  people,  in  chap.  ii.  14-17  (E.  V.  chap.  ii.  10,  11), 
may,  by  reason  of  the  context  in  which  it  occurs,  be  sup- 
posed to  have  some  such  reference.  But  there  is  nothing 
here  to  require  us  thus  to  explain  this  passage.  Its  con- 
nexion with  chap.  i.  16  seems  to  us  clearly  to  show  that  the 
dwelling  of  Jahaveh  with  his  people  signifies  nothing  more  or 
less  than  the  restitution  of  his  favour  and  good  will  towards 
Israel,  who  for  their  sin  had  been  cast  out  of  his  sight. 

The  blessings  spoken  of  as  destined  to  be  the  consequence 
of  this  gracious  restitution  of  God's  favour  are  distinctly 
viewed  as  conditional.  This  is  implied  by  the  very  context 
in  which  such  promises  occur.  They  are  preceded  by  a 
solemn  declaration  respecting  the  cause  of  Jerusalem's  former 
ills,  and  followed  immediately  by  a  solemn  exhortation 
(verses  16,  17)  to  avoid  such  sins  for  the  future.  The  closing 
section  (verse  20-23),  which  speaks  of  the  calling  of  the 
Gentiles,  reaches  to  Messianic  days,  which  are  ever  viewed  as 
closely  connected  with  the  days  of  the  restoration.  But  the 
words  of  the  prophecy  in  general  do  not  justify  us  in  con- 
sidering it  to  refer  to  days  still  future.  Though  it  is  true 
that  the  New  Testament  speaks  of  a  future  conversion  of 
Israel,  which  will  be  accompanied  with  great  blessings  to 
the  world,  the  result  of  such  an  event  is  not  that  depicted 
in  this  place. 

In  predicting  that  Jerusalem  would  become  "  a  city  of 
truth  "  (verse  3),  something  more  indeed  is  meant  than  that 
the  city  was  to  be  an  abiding,  a  secure  city  (Kohler).  The 
expression  rather  signifies,  as  Pressel  has  explained  it,  a  city 
in  which  the  truth  is  to  be  found  ;  Jerusalem  would  be  a 
holy  mountain,  because  Jahaveh  would  again  make  it  his 
dwelling.  The  perfect  tense  is  found  in  this  clause,  "  is 
called  "  or  "  shall  be  called,"  as  well  as  in  the  clauses  pre- 
ceding,   because    the    promise    had    already   begun    to    be 


l8o  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  viii.  3. 

fulfilled,  even  from  the  very  day  when  Jahaveh  returned 
in  mercy  to  the  people,  and  the  first  band  of  Jewish  exiles 
trod  again  the  streets  of  Jerusalem.  (Comp.  Isa.  i.  26.)  The 
very  opposite  of  the  picture  here  presented  is  drawn  in  Nah. 
iii.  I,  where  Nineveh  is  described  as  full  of  lies  and  robbery. 
Jerusalem  was  often  described  by  the  prophets  as  having 
been  once,  in  days  before  the  exile,  a  city  of  truth  and 
righteousness  (comp.  Isa.  i.  21,  etc.),  and  its  people  as  destined 
again  to  become  (Zeph.  iii.  13,  etc.)  a  people  of  truth.  Those 
who  from  such  expressions  seek  to  paint  visions  of  millennial 
glories  should  remember  how  Hezekiah  spoke  of  "  peace  and 
truth  "  existing  in  his  days  (Isa.  xxxix.  8),  and  also  that  the 
false  prophets  used  the  expression  "  peace  of  truth "  for 
"abiding  peace"  (Jer.  xiv.  13).  Jerusalem  was  regarded  as  a 
city  of  truth  while  she  adhered  to  the  law  of  her  God  ;  and 
the  temple  mountain  was  the  mountain  of  holiness  as  long  as 
earnest  worshippers  trod  its  courts,  and  as  long  as  those  courts 
were  not  profaned  by  the  feet  of  the  hostile  stranger 
(Joel  iv.  17  ;  E.  V.  iii.  17).  It  ought  not  to  be  forgotten  that 
Jahaveh  was  said  to  dwell  in  the  sanctuary  (Exod.  xxv.  8, 
xxix.  45  ;  Deut.  xii.  11),  and  the  tabernacle  was  styled  his 
dwelling-place  (Ps.  Ixxiv.  7),  as  was  also  Zion  itself  (Ps. 
Ixxxvi.  3  ;  E.  V.  verse  2). 

There  was  unquestionably  an  earnest  spirit  abroad  among 
the  Jewish  people  in  the  days  of  the  prophet  ;  and  though 
those  days  of  revival  were  succeeded  by  days  of  religious 
declension,  the  prophecy  of  Zechariah  must  be  regarded  as 
having  been  fulfilled  wiien  even  the  laws  concerning  Sabbath 
observance  were  rigidly  carried  out  under  the  governorship  of 
Nehemiah  (Neh.  xiii.). 

We  agree  with  Kohler,  Klicfoth  and  others,  in  maintaining 
every  promise  contained  in  the  seventh  and  eighth  chapters 
has  been  fulfilled  in  the  period  which  elapsed  between  the 
days  of  Zerubbabel  and    Christ.      It  has  always  seemed  to  us 


Ch.viii.  4.]  ADDRESSES  OF  ZECHARIAH  TO  THE  PEOPLE.  l8l 

to  be  making  sport  of  the  prophecies  to  seek  in  all  cases,  in 
which  an  absolutely  literal  fulfilment  cannot  be  pointed  out,  to 
apply  such  prophecies  to  some  future,  that  keeps  gradually  re- 
ceding from  us.  Many  of  the  prophecies  which  are  still  viewed 
by  the  latter-day  expositors  as  unfulfilled  have  long  ago( 
been  accomplished.  But  the  ideal  of  the  prophet  has  sorne- 
times  not  beenjttained^through.  the  sin  of  man,  or,  perhaps, 
the  blessing  bestowed  from  on  high  has  not  been  perma- 
nently granted,  owing  to  that  very  same  cause,  a  possibility  I 
more  or  less  distinctly  kept  in  view  in  the  prophecies  them- , 
selves. 

As  the  blessings  of  old  age  and  a  healthy  and  numerous 
ofTspring  were  blessings  specially  promised  to  the  Israelites  on 
their  entrance  into  Canaan  (Deut.  iv.  40,  v.  16,  30,  verses  16, 
33  in  the  E.  V.  ;  xi.  9,  xxxii.  47,  etc.),  similar  blessings  were 
promised  to  those  who  had  been  brought  out  of  the  land  of 
their  captivity.  Old  men  and  women  should  again  sit  in 
the  streets  of  Jerusalem,  each  of  them  through  very  age  lean- 
ing on  their  staves,  while  the  streets  should  be  full  of  boys 
and  girls  playing  in  the  sight  of  their  aged  grandparents. 
That  in  the  promise  of  blessings  which  are  admittedly  future, 
old  age  is  also  mentioned  as  one  of  the  characteristics  of 
a  better  era  (Is.  Ixv.  20),  does  not  in  the  least  justify 
those  who  would  refer  the  promises  before  us  to  days  still 
future.  The  actual  fulfilment  of  these  very  promises  has  been 
beautifully  recorded  as  one  of  the  results  of  the  victories  of 
the  Maccabee  period.  "  Then  did  they  till  their  ground  in 
peace,  and  the  earth  gave  her  increase,  and  the  trees  of  the 
field  their  fruit.  The  ancient  men  sat  in  all  the  streets,  com- 
muning together  of  good  things,  and  the  young  men  put  on 
glorious  and  warlike  apparel.  .  .  .  He  (Simon)  made  peace 
in  the  land,  and  Israel  rejoiced  with  great  joy.  For  every 
man  sat  under  his  vine  and  his  fig-tree,  and  there  was  none  to 
fray  them"  (i   Mace.  xiv.   8,  9,  11,  12).     One    portion  of  the 


l82  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.        [Ch.  viii.  4-6. 

picture,  and  that  not  the  least  beautiful,  is,  indeed,  not  given 
by  the  martial  historian  of  that  warlike  period  which  closed 
in  such  peace  and  quiet.  It,  however,  was  not  wanting — 
namely,  the  boys  and  girls  playing  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem. 
Pressel  has  well  observed  that  the  fact  of  such  a  prediction 
as  this  being  vouchsafed  by  the  Lord  for  the  encouragement 
of  the  Jewish  people  proves  how  lamentable  must  have  been 
the  position  in  which  the  Jewish  exiles  found  themselves  on 
their  return  from  captivity. 

According  to  the  ordinary  interpretation,  the  second  clause 
in  verse  6  is  to  be  taken  interrogatively.  "  Thus  says  Jaha- 
veh  of  hosts,  If  it  be  wonderful  in  the  eyes  of  the  remnant 
of  this  people  (those  that  would  remain  in  the  days  when  the 
promise  would  be  fulfilled,  comp.  Hag.  i.  12,  14),  in  those  days 
(not,  in  these  days),  shall  it  be  also  wonderful  in  my  eyes  ?  is 
the  utterance  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts."  The  sentence  would  thus 
be  equivalent  in  meaning  to,  "  is  anything  too  hard  for  the 
Lord  .'' "  (Gen.  xviii.  14).  This  translation  is  very  possible 
(compare  l  Sam.  xxii.  7) ;  but  it  is  objected  to  by  Hitzig  and 
Kohler.  Kimchi  also  seems  to  prefer  the  opinion  which  re- 
gards the  passage  as  not  being  interrogative,  for  he  remarks, 
"  But  the  wise  man  [rather,  the  scholar]  R.  Abraham  Aben 
Ezra  takes  it  as  it  stands,  and  to  mean,  '  I  will  do  a  wonderful 
thing  in  those  days,  of  which  I  never  did  the  like.'  "  (McCaul's 
Transl.  of  Kimchi,  p.  'j^))  Hitzig,  not  very  dissimilarly  "  if  it 
shall  appear  impossible  to  the  remnant,  etc.,  it  will  also  appear 
impossible  to  me."  That  is,  if  in  the  day  when  the  promise 
shall  be  accomplished,  it  still  appears  impossible  to  you, 
Jahaveh  will  also  regard  it  as  impossible."  Very  similarly 
Kohler,  though  he  objects  to  the  word  being  rendered  as 
"  impossible,"  and  prefers  to  take  it  in  its  usual  sense  of 
"wonderful,"  "extraordinary,"  "unicjue."  Jahaveh  promised  to 
deal  wonderfully  with  his  people  in  the  days  to  which  reference 
is  made.     Neumann  paraphrases  the  passage  :    "  Wonderful 


Ch.  Yiii.6-8.]  ADDRESSES  OF  ZECHARIAH  TO  THE  PEOPLE.        1 83 

is  my  counsel,  says  Jahaveh,  not  only  in  the  sense  of  human 
shortsightedness,  because  the  remnant  of  Israel  should  ac- 
complish so  hard  a  work  as  to  build  the  temple  of  God,  but 
also  (DJ))  in  my  own  eyes.  My  ways  are  wonderful,  and  higher 
than  men's  ways.  The  Victorious  Hero  who  accomplishes  his 
blessed  work  on  earth  is  wonderful  {Isa.  ix.  6),  wonderful  is 
the  name  of  his  glory  (Judg.  xiii.  18),  he  does  wonders  (Exod. 
XV,  11)." 

To  these  glorious  promises  the  Lord  added  a  further  one 
respecting  the  complete  recovery  of  his  people  from  the 
various  lands  into  which  they  had  been  scattered.  Blessings 
were  to  be  bestowed  not  merely  on  those  who  had  already 
returned  to  their  own  land,  but  also  on  the  people  in  general, 
whose  further  recovery  is  here  promised  (verses  7,  8).  The 
participle  (which  is  the  form  used  in  the  original  in  verse  6) 
has,  properly  speaking,  no  reference  to  time.  It  is,  however, 
most  commonly  employed  in  reference  to  present  time,  though 
it  can  be  used  of  the  future.  Its  use  here,  especially  after 
such  an  expression  as  lo  !  behold  !  (H^n),  seems  rather  to 
designate  something  which  is  regarded  at  the  moment  of 
speaking  as  actually  in  progress,  and  unconditioned  as  it  is 
here  by  any  other  words  in  the  sentence,  it  seems  to  indicate 
that  the  blessing,  which  was  promised  indeed  in  greater 
measure  in  the  future,  was  one  the  bestowal  of  which 
had  even  then  begun.  "  Lo,  I  am  about  to  save,"  "  am 
saving,"  as  it  were  already — the  proof  of  which  was  afforded 
by  the  numerous  exiles  who  had  already  returned — "  my 
people  from  the  land  of  the  rising  {i.e.,  of  the  sun,  the  east, 
Ps.  1.  I,  cxiii.  3,  etc.)  and  from  the  land  of  the  entrance  of 
the  sun  (into  its  rest,  i.e.,  the  west,  Ps.  1.  i  ;  Deut.  xi.  30  ; 
comp.  Ps.  xix.  6),  and  I  will  bring  them  back,  and  they  shall 
dwell  in  the  midst  of  Jerusalem,  and  they  shall  be  to  me 
for  a  people,  and  I  will  be  a  God  to  them,  in  truth  and  in 
righteousness." 


l84  ZECHARIAII    AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  viii.  8,  9. 

The  promise  that  all  Israel  shall  dwell  in  Jerusalem  is 
peculiar.  But  the  allusion  is  evidently  to  Jerusalem,  not 
so  much  the  actual  residence  of  all  the  people,  but  as  the 
place  where  Israel  should  worship  Jahaveh.  Jerusalem  itself, 
however,  was  described  by  the  prophet  (chap.  ii.  8)  as  a 
city  which  would  be  like  a  collection  of  villages,  because 
of  the  multitude  of  people  which  would  be  in  her  midst. 
Such  prophetic  statements  as  that  which  occurs  here  (chap, 
viii.  8)  arc  not,  of  course,  to  be  taken  as  literal. 

The  Lord  promised  still  further  that  he  would  be  the  God 
of  his  people  "  in  truth  and  righteousness,"  and  that  they 
should  also  be  his  people.  In  other  words,  the  Lord  promised 
that  he  would  deal  truly  and  righteously  with  them,  but 
that  he  required  in  return  from  them  righteousness  and  truth. 
If  the  continuance  of  God's  dwelling  with  his  people  was  to 
be  looked  for,  Israel  must  walk  righteously  before  him. 
Comp.  Hos.  ii.  21,  22,  verses  19,  20  E.  V.,  and  i  Kings 
iii.  6,  where  David  is  described  as  having  thus  walked  before 
God  "  in  truth  and  righteousness,"  as  also  the  condemna- 
tion of  the  Jews  and  Israelites  in  Isa.  xlviii.  i,  because  they 
made  mention  of  the  God  of  Israel  "  not  in  truth  nor  in 
righteousness." 

Inasmuch  as  Zechariah  had  been  commissioned  to  announce 
such  great  blessings  to  the  people,  he  was  further  directed 
to  call  their  attention  to  the  fact  that  an  improvement  had 
already  taken  place  in  their  condition  from  the  very  day 
in  which  they  had  set  themselves  earnestly  to  fulfil  the  com- 
mands of  the  Lord.  The  contemplation  of  that  to  which 
they  had  already  attained  might  serve  to  stir  them  up  to 
still  greater  zeal  and  activity  in  obeying  the  directions  of 
their  God,  "Thus  saith  Jahaveh  of  hosts,  let  )-our  hands  be 
3trong  (comp.  verse  13  ;  Judg.  vii.  11  ;  2  Sam.  xvi.  21  ;  Isa. 
XXXV.  3,  4,  etc.),  ye  who  hear  in  these  days  these  words  from 
the  mouth  of  the  prophets  (evidently  Haggai  and  Zechariah) 


Ch.  viii.  9,  lo.]  ADDRESSES  OF  ZECHARIAH  TO  THE  PEOPLE.       185 

who^  were  {i.e.  came  forward  as  prophets)  in  the  day  (at  the 
period,  in  which)  the  house  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts  was  founded, 
the  temple,  in  order  that  it  should  be  built  "  (see  crit.  comm.). 
The  latter  words  are  added  in  order  to  mark  off  more  dis- 
tinctly the  second  period  at  which  the  Jews  set  to  work  on 
the  temple  (Hag.  ii.  14  ;  Ezra  v.  1,2)  from  the  earlier  period 
(Ezra  iii.  10),  in  which,  indeed,  the  foundations  of  the  temple 
were  laid,  but  not  in  order  that  it  should  be  built.  For  the 
disturbances  of  that  time,  and  the  want  of  earnestness  in  the 
people,  hindered  the  work  from  being  continued  as  it  ought. 

Previously  to  those  days,  that  is,  before  the  people  had  begun 
resolutely  to  set  themselves  to  begin  and  continue  the  building 
of  the  temple,  the  circumstances  of  the  Jewish  colony  were 
indeed  desperate.  Men  were  unable  to  obtain  wages  for  their 
work,  nor  did  the  oxen  get  their  hire  for  their  toil,  that  is,  the 
full  supply  of  provender  they  needed  in  order  to  recompense 
them  for  their  labour  (Hag.  i.  1 1  ;  Isa.  xxx.  24  ;  2  Chron.  xv.  7.) 
There  was  no  peace  for  the  person  that  went  out,  or  for  him 
that  came  in,  that  is,  no  quiet  for  all  who  had  to  go  about  their 
various  business,  on  account  of  the  oppressor  ;  while  strife 
and  contention  prevailed  among  the  restored  exiles  themselves. 
Over  and  above  the  difficulties  which  were  created  by  reason 
of  the  hostility  of  the  border  nations  and   of  those  Gentiles 


'  The  relative  cannot  refer  to  "  the  words  "  spoken.  The  reference  of  the  relative 
is  obscure  in  the  rendering  of  the  Vulgate  "  qui  auditis  in  his  diebus  sermones  istos 
per  OS  prophetarum  in  die  qua  fundata  est  domus  Domini,"  etc.  Ewald,  who  was 
somewhat  inclined  {Propli.  dei-  A.  B.  vol.  iii.)  to  substitute  "  these^''  for  "  those"  in 
verse  6,  has  maintained  in  his  Hist,  of  Israel  (Engl,  transl.  vol.  v.  p.  102,  foot- 
note) that  Zechariah  alludes  here  to  a  number  of  prophets  who  uttered  lofty  anti- 
cipations of  this  kind  after  the  foundation  of  the  temple.  There  are  no  grounds, 
however,  for  such  a  conjecture.  The  accentuators  clearly  referred  the  relative  to 
"the  prophets."  As  allusion  is  made  to  the  recommencement  of  work  on  the 
temple  building,  which  was  powerfully  aided  by  the  prophets  Haggai  and  Zecha- 
riah, no  others  being  referred  to  in  Ezra  v.  or  elsewhere,  and  as  that  period  was 
marked  by  the  coming  forward  of  those  prophets,  there  is  no  need  to  read,  with  the 
LXX,  Di*P  (d9i'  ^s  Vf/sas).  instead  of  DVIl.  as  urged  by  Hitzig,  and  approved 
by  Ewald. 


l86  ZECIiARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.      [Ch.  viii.  10-12. 

who  dwelt  in  the  land  (Ezra  iv.),  Hitzig  observes  that  the  ex- 
pedition of  Cambyses  to  Egypt  occurred  during  this  period, 
and,  though  it  is  not  referred  to  in  the  book  of  Ezra,  the 
march  of  the  Persian  troops  through  the  land  southwards 
must  have  caused  no  little  affliction  to  the  colonists  under 
their  distressing  circumstances. 

The  prophet  was,  however,  commissioned  to  announce  from 
the  mouth  of  the  Lord,  that  this  state  of  things  would  be 
entirely  altered.  A  marked  improvement  had  already  begun 
(see  Hag.  ii.  15-19).  So  long  as  the  house  of  the  Lord  had 
been  permitted  through  the  indolence  of  the  people  to  lie 
waste,  a  curse  had  rested  upon  the  land.  That  curse  was 
now  removed.  "  For  the  seed  of  peace,"  1  the  vine,  would 
give  its  fruit,  and  the  earth  her  produce,  and  the  heavens 
their  dew,  for  all  these  blessings  would  Jahaveh  make  the 
remnant  of  his  people  to  possess  in  the  land  to  which  he  had 
restored  them.  (See  Hag.  i.  9-11,  ii.  15-19;  and  comp. 
Lev.  xxvi.  4,  ff. ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  28  ;  Ps.  Ixvii.  7,  E.V.  verse  6.) 

'  The  phrase  is  very  peculiar,  DlpJi'n  1?1?.  ^3-  The  word  D1X*  "peace"  cannot 
be  regarded  as  the  predicate,  for  the  article  cannot  thus  be  used,  Ges.  §  no,  3. 
The  Authorised  Version,  therefore,  is  incorrect:  "the  seed  shall  be  prosperous. " 
The  ancient  versions  consider  that  the  substantive  verb  is  omitted,  and  view  DITJ'n 
as  the  genitive.  Thus  the  Vulgate,  sed  semen  pacis  ent ;  more  paraphrastically 
the  Targum,    D?^'  *n?  ^V"^^  ''''^  ^^^'^  ^^'^'^^^  ^^  perfect,  and  Syriac,  quoad  sensum, 

\\~\  «^  joou  bi.n  ^^ic  ''''"'  ^o'cuing  shall  be  in  peace.  But  the  omission 
of  the  substantive  verb  in  such  a  sense  is  against  the  syntax.  Hence  we  must 
adopt  the  view  of  Ewald,  Hitzig,  Kohler,  and  Keil,  namely,  that  the  vine  is 
called  "the  seed  of  peace,"  inasmuch  as  it  can  only  prosper  in  days  of  peace,  its 
cultivation  requiring  much  care  and  attention.  In  this  case  Dl7w'n  TIT  is  viewed 
as  in  apposition  to  the  following  noun.  Hitzig  considers  the  vine  so  termed  be- 
cause the  vine  is  the  plant  0/ prosperity  (Gewachs  des  Hciles),  because  there  is 
in  the  grape  a  blessing,  nS")!!  (  =  D1X',  Isa.  xxxvi.  16;  comp.  Isa.  Ixv.  8).  The 
vine  is  mentioned  among  the  blessings  of  Judah  (Gen.  xlix.  11).  The  objection 
that  the  vine  is  not  sown  is  not  to  be  urged.  The  vine  is  one  of  those  trees  which 
have  12  II^IT  "It^'X  '•"12  (Gen.  i.  11.)  Umbreit,  Rosenmiiller,  Maurer,  etc.,  adopt 
the  view  of  the  versions,  but  it  is  beset  with  dilTicuIties.  The  translation 
of  the  LXX.,  dXV  ^  Stifw  dp7)vqv  possibly  indicates  a  different  reading  in  place  of 
UHT.  eillicr  nS")X,  as  Kohler,  or  belter,  as  Schleusner,  ^^^  used  metaphorically. 


Ch.viii.  12,  13-]   ADDRESSES  OF  ZECHARIAH  TO  THE  PEOPLE.    iS/ 

In  addition  to  these  blessings,  the  Lord  promised,  that  as 
Israel  had  been  a  curse  among  the  nations — that  is,  as  other 
nations,  when  imprecating  curses  on  their  foes,  were  wont  to 
wish  them  the  fate  of  Israel — so  it  w^ould  come  to  pass  in 
time  to  come  that  Israel's  lot  should  be  so  remarkable  for  its 
happiness  that  those  who  prayed  for  blessings  on  their  friends 
would  wish  that  they  might  be  as  Israel.  The  formula,  "  to 
be  a  curse  among  the  nations,"  or  "  to  be  taken  up  as  a  curse 
among  the  nations,"  is  frequently  found  in  this  signification. 
Comp.  Jer.  xxiv.  9;  2  Kings  xxii.  19;  Jer.  xxix.  22;  Isa, 
Ixv.  15.  Similarly,  the  formula  "to  be  a  blessing"  is  used  in 
the  reverse  signification  (Gen.  xlviii.  20  ;  Ruth  iv.  11,  12).  The 
latter  phrase  must  be  explained  homogeneously  with  the 
former,  so  that  it  cannot  indicate  here  that  Israel  was  to  be  a 
blessing,  that  is,  a  source  of  blessing,  to  all  the  nations  of 
the  world,  as  Neumann  and  others  have  explained  it.^ 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  house  of  Judah  and  the  house 
of  Israel,  both  often  comprehended  under  the  latter  desig- 
nation, are  viewed  by  the  prophets  as  partakers  together  of 
the  blessings  promised.  The  return  from  captivity  was 
viewed  as  the  return  of  the  whole  nation  and  of  its  various 
tribes,  and  numbers  of  the  members  of  other  tribes  than 
Judah  and  Benjamin  did  actually  return  with  their  brethren 
of  the  house  of  Judah.  Some  of  these,  who  for  distinction's 
sake  may  be  termed  Israelites  (though  that  name,  as  we  shall 
see  in  another  place,  is  by  no  means  peculiar  to  the  ten 
tribes),  kept  alive  in  their  respective  families  the  tradition  of 
the  special  tribe  from  which  they  were  descended  (Luke  ii.  36). 
Intermarriage  had,  however,  long  before  broken  down,  in  a 
great  measure,  all  rigid  tribal  distinctions,  and  in  most  cases 

'  Consequently  the  LXX.  translators  have  not  given  the  trae  meaning,  kuI  ecrrai 
6v  rpoTTOV  ^re  ev  Kardpa  ev  Tois  ^dveaiv  b  oIkos  'lovda  Kal  o'lKos'IcrparjX,  ovtus  Stacrwcrw 
v/ids  Kal  iffeade  iv  evXoyig..  The  expression  (o  be  a  blessing  is  no  doubt  used  in  that 
sense  in  Ezek.  xxxiv.  26 ;  Gen.  xii.  2. 


1 88  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.     [Ch.  viii.  13,  14. 

the  tribal  genealogies  were  entirely  lost,  though  in  some  few 
they  were  imperfectly  preserved.  Thus  by  degrees  the  larger 
proportion  of  the  families  belonging  originally  to  other  tribes 
became  fused  into  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  were  popularly 
regarded  as  Jews.  All  the  Israelites  were  known  as  "Jews" 
by  the  Gentile  nations.  These  points  will  be  more  fully 
discussed  in  our  observations  on  chaps,  ix.,  x.,  and  xi. 

The    full  accomplishment  of  the  blessings    here  promised 
to  Jews  and  Israelites  in  common  was  prevented  by  the  sin 
of    the    people ;    for    all    the    blessings    were    strictly    con- 
ditional on  their  obedience.     It  was  want  of  faith,  not  want 
of    power,   which    prevented    the    more    general    return    of 
the   people   from  all  lands.     Permission   to   return  had  been 
fully    accorded  to  them.       Those    who    talk    of   the    advent 
of  a    day  in    which    all    the   descendants   of  Israel,   without 
exception,  shall  be  brought   back  to  their  own  land,  forget 
that   the   land  of  Palestine  could   not   possibly  bear  such  a 
j  population.     The  re-division  of   the    land    among  the   tribes 
,'   would    be   impossible.        Numbers    of    Gentiles    at    different 
j  times  became  Jews,   and  thus  became  full  partakers  of  the 
^  blessings  and  rights  of  the  covenant  of  Abraham  (comp.  Esther 
viii.  17).     When  Ezekiel  speaks  of  the  return  of  Israel,  and 
of  a  re-division  of  the   land,  he  recognises  fully  the  right  of 
the  strangers  to  possess  an  inheritance  in  the  land  on  equal 
i^  terms  with  the  children  of  Israel  (Ezek.  xlvii.    21,  22,  etc.). 
The  language  of  the  prophets   is  perfectly  incapable  of  any 
such  "  literal  "  fulfilment  as  some  look  for.     The  language  of 
Zechariah,  if  thus  explained,  would  be  absurd,  as,  for  instance, 
verse  8,  where  all  the  people  are  spoken  of  as  dwelling  in  Jeru- 
salem. It  is,  however,  quite  possible  to  believe  in  the  national 
conversion  and  general  restoration  of  Israel,  without  embracing 
all  the  visionary  imaginations  of  a  certain  class  of  expositors. 
It    was   the  sin   of  the  Jewish    nation,  urged    the  prophet 
Zechariah,    speaking   in    the    name    of   Jahaveh,    which    led 


Ch.viii.  14-17.]  ADDRESSES  OF  ZECHARIAH  TO  THE  PEOPLE.      1 89 

the  Lord  to  purpose  against  them  the  heavy  judgments 
which  came  upon  them  because  of  the  provocations  whereby 
they  had  provoked  him  to  anger.  For  the  Lord  did  not 
repent  him  of  that  purpose;  the  vengeance  threatened  duly 
came  to  pass.  But  now  the  prophet  was  commissioned 
to  tell  the  people  that  the  whole  condition  of  affairs  was 
altered.  God's  purposes  were  again  purposes  of  love.  He 
designed  in  those  days  to  do  good  to  "  Jerusalem  and 
the  house  of  Judah,"  under  which  name  be  it  observed 
the  whole  body  of  the  covenant  people  (termed  in  verse  13 
"the  house  of  Judah,  and  the  house  of  Israel")  is  desig- 
nated. The  exiles  needed  not  to  fear,  for  God  was  on  their 
side.  They  should,  however,  take  good  heed  to  walk  after 
the  commandments  of  God,  which  were  "  for  their  good 
always  "  (Deut.  vi.  24),  They  should  specially  observe  such 
commandments  as,  "  Speak  truth  each  man  with  his  friend, 
judge  in  your  gates  (where  judgment  was  wont  to  be  ad- 
ministered, Deut.  xvi.  18,  xxi.  19,  xxii.  15,  etc.)  truth  (that 
is,  what  is  right  and  true,  without  respect  to  fear  or  favour), 
and  judgment  of  peace."  For  all  true  judgment  tends  to 
promote  peace  among  the  contending  parties,  while  all 
corrupt  judgments  increase  dissension  and  strife.^  Especially 
were  they  warned  not  to  devise  evil  against  one  another  in 
their  hearts,  and  not  to  love  false  oaths,  the  solemn  de- 
claration of  the  Lord  ending  with  the  emphatic  words,  "  For 
all  these  things  are  what  I  hate."  ^ 

^  Kimchi  remarks  on  this:  "If  ye  judge  righteousness,  there  will  be  peace 
between  the  parties  in  the  lawsuit,  according  as  our  rabbles  have  said  in  a  proverb 
of  the  children  of  men,  '  He  that  has  his  coat  taken  from  him  by  the  tribunal,  let 
him  sing  and  go  his  way. '  And  they  have  adduced  in  proof  that  verse,  '  And  all  this 
people  shall  also  go  to  their  place  in  peace '  (Exod.  xviii.  23).  'All  the  people,' 
even  he  that  is  condemned  in  judgment.  And  our  rabbles,  of  blessed  memory, 
have  interpreted  D1?Ei^  tSDti'OI  [and  the  judgment  of  peace]  of  reconciliation,  for 
it  is  said,  '  What  sort  of  judgment  is  that  in  which  there  is  peace  ? '  They  an- 
swered, '  That  of  arbitration. '  "      (McCaul's  Trans. ) 

2  The  nX  in  "l^ll  "^l^H.  rOi^'b^'IMi.  in  verse  17  need  not  be  regarded  as  a 
sign  of  the  nominative  as  Rosenmtiller    and  others  think.     The  words  are  better 


IQO  ZECIIARIAII    AND    HIS    rROrilKCIES.    [Ch.  viii.  14-17. 

Thus  were  the  Jews  particularly  warned  against  the  sins  to 
which  they  were  exposed  at  that  particular  period.  No 
denunciation  was  uttered  against  idolatry,  inasmuch  as  that 
sin  was  not  so  common  among  the  people  at  that  particular 
crisis  of  their  history.  But  they  were  warned  against 
those  temptations  common  to  a  people  taught,  by  their  very 
necessities  in  the  land  of  exile,  to  seek  after  gain,  and  there- 
fore apt  to  be  led  astray  by  the  desire  to  make  haste  to  get 
rich  (Prov.  xxviii.  22). 

The  last  portion  of  the  Divine  answer,  probably  communi- 
cated to  the  prophet  at  some  interval  of  time  after  the  former, 
gave  a  more  direct  answer  to  the  question  respecting  the 
fasts,  asked  by  the  deputation  from  the  city  of  Bethel.  In  it 
Jahaveh  graciously  promised  that  the  fast  of  the  fourth 
month  and  the  fast  of  the  fifth  month  and  the  fast  of  the 
seventh  month  and  the  fast  of  the  tenth  month  would  be 
changed  for  the  people  of  Judah  into  joy  and  gladness,  and 
become  festivals  of  thanksgiving.  Their  feasts  had  on  ac- 
count of  their  sins  been  changed  into  fasts,  and  their  days  of 
rejoicing  into  days  of  mourning  (Amos  viii.  10),  but  in  the 
future,  if  they  would  only  love  truth  and  peace,  the  fasts 
would  be  transformed  into  feasts,  and  the  prosperity  of  the 
land  and  the  nation  would  be  so  great,  that  the  former  days 
of  trouble  would  not  be  remembered  (comp.  Isa.  Ixi.  2,  3,  7, 
Ixv.  18,  19).  The  conditional  nature  of  all  these  promises, 
however,  ought  to  be  carefully  observed. 

regarded  as  the  accusative  governed  by  the  active  verb  at  the  end.  Comp.  Hag. 
ii.  5  ;  see  Evvald,  §  277  d,  at  end,  and  note  on  chap.  vii.  7.  Tlic  construction 
might  also  be  explained  by  a  kind  of  attraction,  the  relative  being  introduced  for 
emphasis.  Kohler  prefers  to  explain  it  as  occasioned  by  a  sudden  change  in  the 
writer's  thoughts.  This  is  the  view  which  Ewald  takes  (in  his  Pi-oph.  d.  A,  B.) 
when  he  says  the  author  intended  to  write,  "all  these  things  I  hate,"  but  after 
commencing  the  sentence  introduced  the  more  extended  and  more  lively  division 
of  the  sentence  by  the  relative.  The  omission  of  the  relative  in  some  MSS.  was 
occasioned  no  doubt  by  a  desire  to  avoid  the  harshness  of  the  construction.  The 
relative  is  not  expressed  by  the  LXX.  or  Syr.,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  it  was 
omitted  in  the  MSS.  which  those  translators  used. 


Ch.  viii.  19,  20.]  ADDRESSES  OF  ZECHARIAII  TO  THE  TEOPLE.     191 

It  has  been  supposed  by  some  {e.g.,  Grotius,  and  Hitzig 
seems  inclined  to  the  same  view)  that  the  answer  of  the  Lord 
was  substantially  to  the  effect  that  the  days  in  question  were 
to  be  retained,  but  to  be  observed  as  days  of  joy  and  gladness, 
and  not  as  fasts.  The  answer  cannot,  however,  well  be  viewed 
as  conveying  such  a  meaning,  as  in  that  case  the  jussive  form 
would  have  been  used  in  the  original  (verse  19),  The  effect 
of  the  answer  was,  that  the  special  fasts  concerning  which 
inquiry  was  made,  were  neither  enjoined  on  the  one  hand,  nor 
forbidden  on  the  other.  The  Jews  were  left  quite  at  liberty 
to  make  use  of  such  days  or  not,  as  they  found  it  most  bene- 
ficial to  themselves.  What  God  looked  to  was  the  state  of 
the  heart  and  life,  and  the  people  were  left  free  to  decide  for 
themselves  as  to  the  profit  or  injury  which  the  observance  of 
such  seasons  might  do  to  them. 

It  is  asserted,  however,  that,  according  to  Jewish  tradition,^ 
the  result  of  this  answer  of  the  Lord  was  that  the  four  special 
fast  days  were  forthwith  abolished,  as  that  was  judged  to  be 
the  course  most  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  Divine 
oracle.  The  fasts  were,  however,  re-introduced  after  the 
destruction  of  the  second  temple,  an  additional  fast  day 
being  then  added  to  the  fourth  month,  on  account  of  the 
calamities  noted  as  having  then  occurred  (see  note  on  p.  163). 
Kohler  considers  that  this  is  very  improbable.  For  though 
the  fast  in  the  fifth  month,  that  of  Ab,  which  recalled  to  mind 
the  destruction  of  the  temple,  might  well  be  re-introduced  at 
a  later  period,  there  was  no  reason  why  special  days  should 
again  be  set  apart  for  bewailing  the  events  which  had  taken 
place  in  the  days  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  Such  an  objection, 
however,  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  decisive. 

The  Divine  answer  concluded  with  the  promise  set  forth 
in   verse    20,  ff.,   "Thus  saith  Jahaveh  of   hosts,  it  will  yet 

'  Kohler  refers  to  the  Rosh-ha-shanah,  fol.  18,  a.b. ,  and  to  M.  Briick,  Pharis. 
Volksitten  and  Ritualien,  p.  47,  ff. 


192  ZECIIARIAII    AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.     [Ch.  viii.  20-23. 

be  ^  (happen)  that  people  will  come,  and  inhabitants  of  many 
cities  (scarcely,  as  Kohler  after  Drusius  renders  it,  "of  large 
cities  "),  and  the  inhabitants  of  one  (city)  will  go  to  another, 
saying.  Let  us  go "  to  intreat  the  face  of  Jahaveh,  and  to  seek 
Jahavch  of  hosts."  To  this  invitation  the  inhabitants  of  each 
city  addressed  are  represented  as  willingly  responding,  "  I 
will  go  also."  The  use  of  the  first  person  in  such  cases  is 
found  elsewhere,  as  in  i  Sam.  v.  10  ;  2  Sam.  xx.  19,  and  the 
answer  need  not  be  regarded  as  given  by  each  inhabitant  of 
the  city  addressed  (Neumann).  The  sentence  can  scarcely  be 
regarded  as  itself  forming  part  of  the  exhortation,  as  the 
Targum  and  Rosenmiiller  have  viewed  it. 

"And  many  peoples  and  strong  (or,  numerous,  as  Kimchi, 
comp.  the  use  of  the  verb  in  Ps.  xl.  13,  verse  12  E.V.  ;  Jer. 
XV.  8)  nations  will  go  to  seek  Jahaveh  of  hosts  in  Jerusalem, 
and  to  intreat  the  face  of  Jahavch.  Thus  saith  Jahaveh  of 
hosts,  in  those  days  (it  will  happen)  that  ten  men  shall  take 

1  Kohler  takes  HI?  in  verse  20  to  mean  "henceforth,"  "in  future,"  "hence- 
forward it  will  happen,"  etc.  But  this  translation  is  questionable.  It  is  safer  to 
retain  the  ordinary  signification  of  the  word.  Hitzig  considers  that  the  ■^t^*^{ 
which  follows  is  used  to  introduce  the  direct  speech,  like  the  Greek  Sn,  as  in 
I  Sam.  XV.  20  (Ges.,  §  155,  i  e,  Ewald,  §  338  />).  He  renders,  "yes,  still  will 
peoples  come,"  referring  for  the  position  of  "lU  in  the  beginning  of  the  sentence  to 
Micah  vi.  10,  wliich  is  scarcely  a  case  in  point.  The  "Iti'S  is,  however,  better 
rendered  here  as  the  conjunction  t/iaL  So  Ewald,  §  336  a,  and  Fiirst  in  his 
Wdrterbuch.  The  view  which  Gesenius  maintained,  that  the  relative  was 
sometimes  used  as  a  sign  of  the  apodosis,  on  which  principle  he  explained 
this  and  other  passages,  has  been  abandoned  by  later  scholars,  and  the  sup- 
posed instances  of  this  usage  given  in  his  Lexicon,  have  been  explained 
either  by  considering  the  word  actually  to  be  used  as  a  relative  referring  to  a 
preceding  noun,  as  in  Isaiah  viii.  20,  or  by  the  omission  of  the  substantive  verb 
as  in  this  passage.  See  the  new  edition  of  Gesenius'  IVdrterbtick  by  Miihlau  and 
Volck,  Leipz.,  1878.  The  rendering  above  has  the  support  of  Maurer,  Ewald, 
Keil,  etc.     The  Vulg.  has  "  usquequo  (reading  ir)  veniant  populi." 

2  The  construction  here  used,  namely,  the  imperfect  in  the  cohortative  form 
followed  by  the  infin.  absol.  denotes  the  desire  of  going  continually  (Ges.  §  131, 
3,  b  ;  Kalisch,  §  97,  7.  The  construction  has  been  explained  by  Rosenmiiller  to 
indicate  intensity,  "  all  together  and  with  great  eagerness."  So  also  Schrocder, 
Inst.  ad.  fund.  Ling.  Ilcb.  de  synt.  verb.,  §  3,  R.  91.  IJut  in  sucli  a  case  the 
infinitive  generally  precedes  the  verb. 


Ch.  viii.  21-23.]  ADDRESSES  OF  ZECHARIAH  TO  THE  PEOPLE.     I93 

hold,  out  of  all  the  languages  of  the  nations,  even  take  hold  ^ 
of  the  skirt  of  a  man  (who  is)  a  Jew,  saying,  Let  us  go  with 
you,  for  we  have  heard  that  God  is  with  you." 

The  prophecy  foreshows  a  state  of  things  which  would  be 
the  result  of  the  dwelling  of  Jahaveh  in  the  midst  of  his  people 
of  a  truth.  That  it  was  fulfilled  in  great  measure  shortly  after 
the  prediction  was  uttered  is  clear  from  the  language  of 
Ps.  cxxvi.  1-4,  "  When  Jahaveh  brought  back  the  captives  of 
Zion  we  were  like  them  that  dream.  Then  was  our  mouth 
filled  with  laughter  and  our  tongue  with  singing ;  then  said 
they  among  the  nations,  Jahaveh  hath  done  great  things  for 
them  ;  yea,  Jahaveh  hath  done  great  things  for  us,  therefore 
we  are  glad."  No  doubt  when  the  Psalmist  sang  that  psalm 
there  were  still  captives  to  be  brought  back,  but  the  language 
of  such  a  psalm  ought  not  to  be  left  out  of  mind.  More- 
over there  were  other  days  of  blessing  for  Israel,  which  were 
noted  and  observed  by  the  nations  around,  and  by  the 
nations  among  whom  they  dwelt ;  such  as  the  wonderful 
deliverance  vouchsafed  in  the  days  of  Esther,  and  the  still 
greater  deliverances  in  the  days  of  the  Maccabees.  On  all 
of  these  occasions  there  were  considerable  accessions  to  their 
numbers  from  the  heathen  round  about  them. 

The  prophecy  speaks  of  the  going  up  of  the  nations  of  the 
earth  to  Jerusalem  in  somewhat  similar  language  to  that 
used  in  Isa.  ii.  2,  3  ;  Mic.  iv.  2,  and  other  places.  Compare 
such  other  passages  as  Isa.  xlv.  14,  15.  There  is  little 
doubt  that  when  the  nations  are  said  to  go  up  to  seek 
Jahaveh  of  hosts  in  Jerusalem,  such  language  in  Old  Testa- 


'  The  verb  is  repeated  here  in  another  form,  and  preceded  by  the  conjunction 
for  greater  clearness,  as  the  verb  in  the  first  clause  is  so  distant;  more  distant  in 
the  original  than  can  be  suitably  expressed  in  an  English  translation.  There  does 
seem  also  some  degree  of  emphasis  intended.  Hitzig  strangely  considers  that  the 
use  of  the  copula  with  the  latter  verb  shows  that  it  is  not  to  be  considered  as  a 
mere  iteration  of  the  former,  but  used  with  some  difference  of  meaning.  But 
observe  the  similar  repetition  in  chap.  vi.  10,  11  of  N12  and  Pip?. 

O 


194  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.     [CI1.vui.21  23. 

mcnt  times  would  naturally  be  explained  of  the  nations 
going  up  to  the  solemn  feasts  held  in  Jerusalem.  Hitzig, 
therefore,  appears  to  us  to  be  correct  in  saying  that  the  author 
had  those  feasts  in  view.  When  Isaiah  similarly  predicts 
the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  he  paints  the  picture  after 
the  ideas  of  the  old  dispensation,  and  speaks  of  the  Gentiles 
as  going  up  to  the  feasts  at  Jerusalem  (Isa.  Ixvi.  20-23). 
The  literal  fulfilment  of  such  passages  is  a  sheer  impossibility. 
Under  such  figures  the  conversion  of  the  nations  is  predicted, 
and  the  glorious  hope  set  forth  that  they  will  form  with 
Israel  one  fold  under  one  shepherd  (John  x.  15,  16).  In  this 
way  may  Israel's  foes  become  Israel's  friends,  and  the  days 
of  mourning  because  of  the  desolations  wrought  by  the 
Gentiles  become  days  of  rejoicing  because  of  their  union  with 
the  chosen  people  of  God. 

When  ten  men  of  all  langua^^es  of  the  earth  are  said  to 
take  hold  of  the  skirt  of  every  man  who  is  a  Jew,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  the  number  ten  is  used  for  any  large 
number.  Comp.  Gen.  xxxi.  7  ;  Lev.  xxvi.  26  ;  Num.  xiv.  22. 
The  skirt  is  spoken  of  as  caught  hold  of  in  order  to  de- 
tain the  Jevv^,  and  to  obtain  his  permission  to  accompany 
him  in  his  journey.  Thus  we  read  of  Saul  seizing  hold  of 
Samuel's  skirt  to  detain  him  (i  Sam.  xv.  27  ;  comp.  the  allu- 
sion to  the  skirts  of  the  priests  in  Hag.  ii.  12).  The  remark 
of  Pusey,  that  "  little  children,  if  they  would  follow  their 
fathers,  lay  hold  of  the  hem  of  their  dress,  and  aided  by  the 
touch  and  hanging  from  their  dress,  walk  steadily  and  safely," 
is  scarcely  suitable  to  the  passage.  Nor  is  there  any  ground 
whatever  to  assert  that  the  language  used  especially  betokens 
the  humble  confession  on  the  part  of  the  Gentiles,  that  ac- 
cording to  their  former  conduct  they  did  not  deserve  that  the 
Jews  should  attend  to  their  request  (Pressel).  Nor  can  the 
passage  be  considered  directly  to  refer  to  the  Messiah  as  the 
person  termed  here  "a   man,  a  Jew,"  which  strange  view  of 


Ch.viii.23.]  ADDRESSES  OF  ZECHARIAH  TO  THE  PEOPLE.  195 

Jerome  is  upheld  by  Dr.  Pusey,  who  remarks  on  "the  start- 
ling condescension  of  the  passage."  This  attempt  to  discover 
prophecies  of  the  Messiah,  even  in  the  most  out  of  the  way 
corners,  is  in  our  opinion  most  damaging  to  sober  evangeHcal 
exegesis,  and  to  the  real  interpretation  of  the  word  of  God. 

The  prophecy  has  been  already  fulfilled  in  the  remarkable 
fact  that  the  religion  introduced  by  a  Jew,  the  religion  which 
consists  in  faith  in  the  person  of  one  who  was  indeed  a  Jew, 
namely,  our  blessed  Lord,  is  that  which  has  been  embraced 
by  a  large  part  of  the  nations,  and  is  destined  in  God's  due 
time  to  be  the  religion  of  the  world.  The  Gentiles  have 
learnt  from  the  Jews  true  religion.  The  apostles  and  all 
the  most  illustrious  of  the  early  teachers  of  Christianity 
were  Jews,  and  instead  of  those  nations  who,  in  early  times, 
accepted  the  religion  of  Christ  having  been  prejudiced 
against  the  Jew,  they  were  only  too  much  inclined  to  accept 
even  the  burdens  of  the  Mosaic  law  in  addition  to  the 
gospel  of  Jesus.  Had  the  Jews  only  accepted  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  as  their  Messiah  their  state  would  have  been 
glorious.  But  notwithstanding  that  sad  rejection  of  Christ, 
a  day  of  blessing  is  spoken  of  by  St.  Paul  (Rom.  xi.)  as  in 
store  for  Israel  in  the  future. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 


THE  PREPARA  TJON  OF  THE  LAND.- 
THE  COMING  OF  THE  KING. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 


The  closing  portion  of  Zechariah — Opinion  of  modern  critics,  199 — Reason  of  the 
special  predictions,  199 — Stahelin's  view  of  the  period,  200 — Cause  of  judg- 
ments being  denounced  against  Syria,  Phoenicia,  and  Philistia,  20i — "  Burden" 
and  "oracle,"  202 — Land  of  Hadrach,  202 — Different  views  of  scholars,  203 — 
Hadrach,  near  Damascus,  204 — Name  found  in  Assyrian  inscriptions,  205 — 
Resting-place  of  the  oracle,  206 — Conflicting  translations  of  chap.  ix.  i,  206 — 
Probable  meaning  of  passage,  208— The  eyes  of  all  men  to  be  directed  towards 
Jehovah  by  his  judgments,  208 — Chamberlain's  view,  209 — Reference  of  the 
prophecy,  209 — Siege  of  Tyre  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  212 — Destruction  by 
Alexander,  212 — Judgment  on  Ashkelon,  213 — Overthrow  of  Gaza,  214 — Gaza 
ruled  by  a  titular  "king,"  215 — Evidence  of  Ilcgesias,  Josephus  and  Arrian, 
215 — View  of  Bleek,  2i6— The  "bastard,"  or  rabble  in  Ashdod,  216— Humili- 
ation and  conversion  of  the  Philistines,  217 — Blood  taken  away  from  his 
mouth,  218 — Ekron  as  the  Jebusite,  218 — Nethinim,  219— Absorption  of  Phi- 
listines into  Israel,  220 — Jehovah  encamping  round  his  house,  221 — Passing  by 
and  returning,  ver.  5,  221 — No  taskmaster  any  more,  222 — The  Lord's  behold- 
ing oppression,  223— Josephus'  story  of  Alexander's  visit  to  Jerusalem,  224 — 
Favour  shown  by  Alexander  to  the  Jews,  226 — Bleek's  view  of  chap.  ix.  as  pre- 
exilian,  227 — Pressel's  view  as  to  date  of  prophecy,  231 — Reply,  231 — Pro- 
phecy not  fulfilled  before  the  exile,  230,  232 — View  of  Maurer,  etc.,  231 — Sale 
of  Lsraelite  captives,  232,  252 — Prediction  of  the  Messiah  as  a  king,  233 — 
Prophecy  now  acknowledged  as  Messianic,  234 — Objection  to  view  of  Pressel, 
233 — "Righteous  and  saved,"  234 — "Afflicted"  or  "lowly,"  235 — Messiah 
riding  on  an  ass,  236 — Why  a  colt  was  used,  236 — Riding  on  an  ass  not  the 
sign  of  humility,  but  of  absence  of  pomp,  237,  ff. — Difficulties  of  early  Jewish 
commentators,  238 — The  two  Messiahs,  238 — Christ's  entry  into  Jerusalem, 
239 — Prophecy  depicts  Christ's  advent  in  general,  not  his  special  entry  into 
Jerusalem,  239 — Lnportance  of  that  act  of  Christ,  239 — Messiah  causes  wars  to 
cease,  240 — Destroys  his  people's  weapons,  240 — Then  speaks  peace  to  Gentiles, 
241,  247  — Loss  of  Jewish  independence,  241 — Rejection  of  Messiah,  242 — Men- 
tion of  Ephraim  no  proof  of  pre-exilian  date,  242,  246 — The  twelve  tribes  one 
great  whole,  243 — The  return  from  captivity,  244 — Genealogical  registers,  244 
— Mixing  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  245 — Name  "Jew"  applied  to  all  the  tribes, 
246 — Jews  called  children  of  Lsrael,  244  note. — The  victories  of  Messiah,  247— 
Limits  of  his  rule,  248 — The  blood  of  the  covenant,  249,  250 — The  pit  without 
water,  251 — The  blessings  in  store,  252 — ^Jews  to  possess  military  power, 
252 — War  of  the  "  Sons  of  Zion  "  against  the  "  Sons  of  Greece,"  253 — Jewish 
intercourse  with  Greece,  254 — Pressel's  view  of  verses  13,  14,  254 — Wars  of  the 
Maccabees,  255 — Description  given  in  verses  14,  15,  not  too  vivid,  256 — Bishop 
Wordsworth's  strange  exposition,  256  note. — Chamberlain's  view  of  the  war  with 
theSonsof  Greece,  257  note. — His  depreciation  of  the  Maccabean  exploits,  257 
note — Maccabean  conflicts  a  war  of  Israel,  256 — The  great  blank  in  Jewish 
annals,  257 — Israel  devouring  as  a  lion,  258 — Subduing  sling-stones,  259 — 
Stones  of  a  diadem,  260 — Israel's  beauty  and  increase  of  population,  261. 


CHAPTER     VIII. 

THE    PREPARATION   OF    THE    LAND. — THE     COMING  OF    THE 

KING. 

The  prophecies  contained  in  the  ninth  and  following  chapters 
of  Zechariah  were  no  doubt  composed  at  a  different  period 
from  that  in  which  the  prophecies  of  the  former  part  of  the 
book  were  written,  and  are  in  several  particulars  unlike  the 
earlier  predictions  of  Zechariah.  Hence  these  later  chapters 
have  been  considered  by  many  critics  of  the  modern  school  to 
belong  to  another  author,  and  have  even  been  assigned  by 
some  scholars  to  two  or  three  different  authors  who  are  sup- 
posed to  have  lived  at  some  period  previous  to  the  Baby- 
lonish captivity. 

In  order  fairly  to  discuss  the  various  arguments  adduced  in 
support  of  the  latter  opinion,  it  will  be  found  more  convenient 
to  start  from  the  supposition  that  the  traditional  view  is  correct, 
namely,  that  Zechariah  was  the  author  of  the  later  as  well  as 
the  earlier  portions  of  the  book.  The  arguments  in  favour  of 
the  pre-exilian  date  of  certain  passages  can  in  many  cases  be 
more  fairly  considered  in  connection  with  the  context  in  which 
those  passages  occur,  while  other  arguments  in  favour  of  this 
hypothesis  will  be  more  suitably  treated  in  our  general  Intro- 
duction. 

The  glorious  prospects  presented  to  the  view  of  the  restored 
exiles  in  the  earlier  visions  of  Zechariah  were  not  soon  realized. 
Notwithstanding  the  exhortations  of  Zechariah  and  Haggai, 
a  very  large  number  of  Israelites  preferred  to  remain  as  volun- 
tary exiles  in  the  land  of  their  captivity,  while  many  of  those 
who  had  returned  to  the  Holy  Land,  forgetful  of  their  peculiar 


200  ZrXIIARIAH   AND    HIS    PROPIIECIES.         [Cli.  ix.  i-8. 

position,  intermarried  with  the  Gentile  nations  who  inhabited 
the  land,  and  thus  recognised  the  equal  right  of  those  aliens  to 
possess  the  land,  which  had  been  granted  by  the  Divine  decree 
to  the  posterity  of  Jacob.     In  place  of  gifts  from  all  nations 
being  poured  into  the  treasuries  of  the  temple,  as  had  been 
promised  by   Haggai  (ii.  7),  and   the  holy  city  thereby  be- 
coming rich   and  powerful,   its  Jewish    inhabitants  still    felt 
bitterly  that  they  were   but  servants  of  the    Persian  kings 
(Neh.  ix.    36,    2i7)y  to  whom  they  had  to  pay  tribute,  while 
at   the  same   time  they  were   harassed   on    all  sides  by  the 
Gentile    nations    among    whom    they     dwelt    (Neh.    iv.    7). 
They  also,  no  doubt,  suffered  considerably  during  the  cam- 
paigns   carried    on    by  Cambyses  against  Egypt  (B.C.   525), 
and  still   later  during  that  of  Xerxes  (B.C.  484),  for  in  their 
march  to  Egypt  the  Persian  hosts  harassed  the  land  of  Judaia, 
and    caused    much    inconvenience    to    the    Jewish    settlers. 
The   house  of  David,  round  which  the  hopes  of  the  Jewi.sh 
nation  centered,  seems  to  have  fallen  into  political  insignificance 
after  the  death  of  Zerubbabel,  while  on  the  other  hand  the 
political  importance  of  the  Phccnicians  rose  considerably,  owing 
to  their  maritime  power;  and  while  there  was  no  king  in  Israel, 
Phoenician  kings  were  permitted  to  retain  their  regal  dignity 
(Herod,  viii.  6"/),  a  privilege  which  seems  to  have  been  granted 
also  to  the  cities  of  Philistia  (Zech.  ix.  5).     Damascus,  too,  the 
ancient  capital  of  Syria,  was  at  this  period  the  residence  of  a 
high  Persian  official,  whose  authority  was  superior  to  that  of 
the  Jewish  governor. 

Such  were  the  circumstances  (as  Stahelin  notes,  lilcss.  Weiss. 
p.  126)  under  which  it  became  of  importance  for  the  prophet 
in  his  later  years  to  seek  to  raise  the  drooping  spirits  of  the 
colony  at  Jerusalem.  It  need  not  surprise  us  that  prophecies 
uttered  under  such  peculiar  circumstances,  and  in  all  proba- 
bility many  years  after  those  recorded  in  the  earlier  chapters 
of  Zechariah,  should,  even  if  supposed  to  be   written   b\-  the 


Ch.  Lx.  i-S.]        THE   PREPARATION   OF   THE   LAND.  201 

same  author,  be  composed  in  a  somewhat  different  style  from 
that  of  his  earher  productions.  Tlie  later  prophecies,  however, 
contain  many  distinct  references  to  those  in  the  earlier  part  of 
the  book,  which  earlier  prophecies  had  been  delivered  with 
the  special  object  of  encouraging  the  people  to  rebuild  the 
temple  of  the  Lord. 

The  reason  why  at  this  special  period  Zechariah  should  have 
been  divinely  commissioned  to  announce  judgments  against 
the  cities  of  Syria,  Phoenicia,  and  Philistia,  was,  as  Kohler  has 
observed,  that  all  the   cities  mentioned  in  the  prophecy  lay 
within  the  territory  granted  by  Divine  promise  to  the  children 
of  Israel  (Gen.  xv.  i8  ;  Exod.  xxiii.  31  ;  comp.  Numb,  xxxiv. 
1-12).    The  territories  alluded  to  had  been  actually  ruled  over 
by  David  {2  Sam.  viii.  6,  9,  10)  and  Solomon  (i  Kings  v.  21), 
and  properly  belonged  to  the  people  of  the  covenant.     Hence 
on  their  return  from   exile  those  lands  belonged  by  right  to 
the  Israelitish  people,  and  would  ultimately  have  been  pos- 
sessed by  them,  had  the  nation  more  generally  availed  itself 
of  the  permission  freely  granted  to  them  by  Cyrus  to  return 
to  the  land  of  promise.     The  limits  of  the  land  marked  out  by 
the  Divine  decree  as  the  portion  of  the  people  of  Israel  did 
not,  however,  comprehend  the  country  of    several  of  those 
peoples  over  whom   David   and  Solomon  had  ruled  (2  Sam. 
viii.).      For   the    limits  assigned   in  the    Law   excluded   the 
territories  of  the  Edomites,  Moabites,  and  Ammonites  {comp. 
Deut.  ii.  4,  5,  9,  19),  and   these  people  are  accordingly  not  re- 
ferred to  in  this  prophecy,  though  they  were  as  bitterly  hostile 
as  their  forefathers  to  Jewish  interests  (Neh.  iv.  3,  7  ;   i  Mace, 
v.  1-3,  etc.).     The  object  of  the  prediction  of  Zechariah  was 
to  encourage  the  people  of  Israel  by  the  thought  of  God's 
protecting  care  over  them,  notwithstanding  their  harassed  con- 
dition, and  by  the  assurance  that  God's  judgment  would  soon 
descend  upon  the  nations  who  occupied  the  inheritance  which 
had    been   originally  assigned   to    Israel.       Hence,    remarks 


202  ZECHARIAH    AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  ix.  i. 

Kohler,  all  the  heathen  within  those  ideal  boundaries  of  Israel 
were  judged  by  Jahaveh,  and  judged,  too,  not  merely  because 
of  their  sins  against  the  people  of  Jahaveh,  but  on  account 
of  their  own  godless  and  God-estranged  doings  (comp.  vv.  2 
and  7).  The  judgment  threatened,  however,  had  not  as  its 
object  the  complete  extermination  and  blotting  out  of  the 
nations  mentioned  as  about  to  be  overtaken  by  it,  but  the  ulti- 
mate recovery  of  those  nations  from  their  sinful  and  barbarous 
habits,  and  their  conversion  unto  Jahaveh,  the  God  of  Israel. 

The  prophecy  of  the  ninth  chapter  commences  with  an  ex- 
pression respecting  which  there  has  been  no  small  difference 
of  opinion.  The  translation  "  burden,"  which  occurs  in  our 
Authorised  Version,  is  upheld  by  the  authority  of  the  majority 
of  the  older  expositors,  and  by  all  the  ancient  versions,  except 
the  LXX.  It  has  also  been  ably  defended  by  recent  eminent 
commentators.  But  the  majority  of  modern  Biblical  critics 
follow  what  may  be  regarded  as  the  opinion  of  the  Greek 
translators,  and  render  the  word  by  "utterance,"  "sentence," 
"  oracle."  The  word  is  unquestionably  used  in  ordinary 
Hebrew  in  the  sense  of  a  burden,  and  the  prophecies  to  which 
it  is  affixed  are  mainly  prophecies  of  woe  and  disaster.  This 
need  not  surprise  us,  however,  as  the  denunciation  of  wrath 
against  ungodliness  and  sin  was  one  of  the  most  ordinary 
duties  of  the  prophets.  Zech.  xii.  i,  may  be  considered  in 
some  respects  an  exception  to  this,  and  other  reasons  incline 
us  to  accept  the  general  opinion  of  the  modern  critics  (see  crit. 
comm.).  In  Prov.  xxx.  and  xxxi.,  the  word  appears  to  be 
used  as  a  proper  name  of  a  district  or  country.  ^ 

The  oracle  now  before  us  chiefly  concerns  the  land  of  Ilad- 
rach,  and  the  cities  of  Syria  and  Phoenicia,  and  those  of  the 
Philistines.       The  expression  "  the  land  of  lladrach  "  occurs 

'  See  Miihlau's  confirmation  of  Hitzig's  view,  that  a  king  of  Massa  is  there 
meant,  in  his  treatise  Dc  Proverb,  qiue  diiuntur  Agnri  ci  Leinudis  origine  atquf 
indole.     Leipzig,  1869. 


Ch.  ix.  I.]  THE   PREPARATION   OF   THE   LAND.  203 

only  in  this  passage,  and  was  for  a  long  time  a  critx  comnicn- 
tatorum.  Bleek,  Gesenius  and  others  explained  it  as  the  name 
of  some  Syrian  monarch  supposed  to  have  occupied  the  throne 
of  Damascus  between  Benhadad  III.  and  Rezin.  This  con- 
jectural explanation  was  sometimes  considered  to  afford  an 
indication  of  the  time  when  the  prophecy  was  composed, 
namely,  not  later  than  the  reign  of  Jotham,  and  consequently 
before  either  the  Assyrian  or  the  Babylonian  captivity.  Mo- 
vers imagined  Hadrach  to  be  connected  with  Adar  or  Asar, 
the  name  of  the  Assyrian  god  of  fire.  The  opinion  of  Hitzig 
varied  at  different  times,  while  Kohler  thought  that  the  land 
designated  by  this  name  was  a  district  not  far  from  Damas- 
cus, which  was  called  after  some  Syrian  deity.  The  Targum 
translated  the  expression  by  "  the  southern  land,"  and  certain 
scholars,  following  this  translation  in  principle,  regarded  the 
word  as  an  appellation,  some  explaining  it  as  "  the  land 
lying  round  thee,"  and  understanding  thereby  the  holy  land 
itself  (Trem.  and  Junius).  A  still  larger  number  of  expositors 
of  different  ages  supposed  the  word  to  be  a  symbolical  de- 
signation. Accordingly  some  Jewish  expositors  regarded  it 
as  a  compound  name  of  the  Messiah,  signifying  "  sharp-tender," 
used  to  indicate  his  severity  towards  the  heathen  and  his  mercy 
towards  Israel.  Several  modern  critics,  as  Hengstenberg, 
viewed  it  as  a  name  of  the  Persian  empire,  which  they  sup- 
posed was  termed  "  strong-weak  "  because  its  strength  was  by 
the  Divine  decree  so  soon  to  be  overthrown.  To  the  latter 
class  of  expositions  it  was  always  considered  a  serious  objec- 
tion that  the  various  significations  of  all  such  allegorical  terms, 
as  Dumah,  applied  by  Isaiah  to  Edom  (Isa.  xxi.  11),  Oholah 
and  Oholibah,  names  given  by  Ezekiel  to  Samaria  and  Jerusa- 
lem (Ezek.  xxiii.  4),  and  Sheshak,  as  Jeremiah  terms  Babylon 
(Jer.  XXV.  26,  li.  41),  are  more  or  less  distinctly  indicated  in  the 
passages  where  such  names  occur ;  whereas  no  such  indication 
is  given  in  the  present  passage,  nor  has  the  signification  of  the 


204  ZECIIARIAH   AND    HIS    rROPIIECIES.  [Ch.  ix.  i. 

word,  so  often  supposed  to  be  allegorical,  been  understood 
up  to  the  present  day. 

Despairing  of  attaining  any  satisfactory  result  from  the 
diverse  theories  propounded  from  time  to  time,  some  scholars 
not  unnaturally  viewed  the  text  as  corrupt,  and  suggested 
various  ways  in  which  it  might  be  corrected.  Among  the  best 
of  these  conjectures  is  that  proposed  by  Olshausen  and  von 
Ortenberg,  namely,  the  substitution  of  the  name  Hauran  in 
place  of  Hadrach,  Hauran  being  a  district  south  of  Damascus 
(Olshausen,  Gr.  §  216  d,  p.  411),  which  is  mentioned  also  in 
connection  with  Hamath  and  Damascus  in  Ezek.  xlvii.  16,  18. 

But  the  old  opinion,  maintained  by  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia 
in  the  fifth  century,  by  Cyrill  and  Theodoret,  and  by  Rabbi 
Jose,  quoted  by  Kimchi  and  other  Jewish  commentators,  has 
at  last  been  discovered  to  be  the  true  one,  namely,  that  Had- 
rach is  the  name  of  a  district  not  far  from  Damascus,  in  which 
there  was  a  city  of  some  importance  of  the  same  name. 
Rabbi  Jose  ben  Durmaskith,  who,  as  his  name  signified,  was 
the  son  of  a  Damascene  mother,  reproved  sharply  R.  Je- 
hudah,  who  had  explained  the  term  as  a  designation  of  the 
Messiah,  in  these  words:  "O  Jehudah,  how  long  wilt  thou 
trouble  us  with  such  perverted  explanations  of  Scripture .'' 
I  take  heaven  and  earth  to  witness,  that  I  am  from  Damascus, 
and  that  there  is  a  place  there  which  is  called  Hadrach."^ 
In  confirmation  of  this  view,  J.  D.  Michaelis  cites  the  distinct 
testimony  of  Joseph  Abassi,  a  noble  Arab  from  the  country 
beyond  the  Jordan,  who  stated  to  him  that  there  was  a  dis- 
trict there  known  by  that  name.  Hcngstenbcrg,  however, 
has  pointed  out  that  the  Arab  in  question  confused  Hadrach 
with  Adraa,  the  ancient  Edrei,  one  of  the  capital  cities  of 
Og,   the   king  of   Bashan,   and   has  cited   other  instances   in 

*  The  dispute  between  R.  Jehiulah  and  R.  Jose  is  given  by  Kohler  in  full 
from  Yalkut  Shimeoni,  i,  fol.  258,  §  575.  The  original  place  where  it  occurs  is 
Si/re  on  Dcut.  i.  i,  on  the  name  ^HT  H. 


Ch.  ix.  I.]  THE   PREPARATION    OF   THE   LAND.  205 

which  these  names  were  thus  confounded.  But  although  the 
researches  hitherto  made  in  ancient  classical  and  Arabic 
geography,  and  the  accounts  of  modern  travellers  in  Syria 
and  its  environs,  have  failed  to  discover  a  district  known 
by  that  name  in  modern  times,  such  a  district  and  city  have 
been  found  in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions. 

In  the  list  of  Assyrian  eponyms,  that  is,  the  list  of  the 
various  officers  after  whom  the  Assyrian  years  were  named  in 
a  certain  definite  order,  the  kings  themselves  acting  in  due 
course  as  eponyms,  we  read  in  B.C.  772  in  the  eponymy  of 
Assur-bel-uzur,  governor  of  Calah,  of  an  "  expedition  to  Had- 
rach"  (Ha-ta-ri-ka).^  This  statement  immediately  follows  the 
name  of  the  governor  of  Sallat  (according  to  Smith,  or  Sal- 
mat,  as  Rawlinson  and  Schrader  give  the  name),  who  was  the 
eponym  in  the  previous  year,  when  an  expedition  was  made  to 
the  city  of  Damascus.  In  B.C.  765,  in  the  eponymy  of  Ninip- 
mukin-nisi,  governor  of  Kirruri,  another  expedition  to  Had- 
rach  also  took  place,  and  a  pestilence  occurred  in  the  same 
year.^  Another  expedition  to  Hadrach  is  spoken  of  as  having 
occurred  in  B.C.  755,  in  the  eponymy  of  Kisu,  governor  of 
Siphinis  (Smith,  p.  64),  or  Michinis  (Mi-hi-ni-is),  as  the  name 
is  written  by  Schrader,  p.  326,  15.  Moreover,  in  the  inscription 
of  Tiglath  Pileser  II.,  which  describes  the  war  of  that  monarch 
with  Azariah  king  of  Judah,  about  B.C.  739,  we  read  :  "  The 
mountain  which  is  in  Lebanon  obeyed  me,  the  land  of  Bahali- 
zephon  as  far  as  Ammana  (Ammon),  the  land  of  Izku  and 
Saua,  throughout  its  whole  extent,  the  district  of  Karanim,  the 
city  of  Hatarika"^  (Hadrach).  In  another  fragment  of  the 
war  in  Palestine  mention  is  made  of  "  the  city  of  Hatarika,  as 

1  Smith's  Assyrian  Canon,  p.  63.  In  .Schrader's  Keil-inschriften  ti.  das  alte  Test. 
the  lists  of  Rawlinson  are  given  with  the  Assyrian  text  and  translation,  in  the  former 
of  which  we  find  the  Assyrian  ana  viat  Ha-ta-ri-ka  (pp.  324,  325). 

2  Smith's  Assyrian  Canon,  p.  63,  also  pp.  46-47.  The  name  of  the  governor 
is  transliterated  Nabu-iikin-nisi  by  Rawlinson  and  Schrader  (Schrader,  p.  327). 

'  See  transl.  by  Rev.  J.  M.  Rodwell  in  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  v.  p.  46. 


206  ZFXIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Cli.  ix.  i. 

for  the  land  of  Saua."^  Moreover,  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  says  that 
"  in  the  catalogue  of  Syrian  cities,  tributary  to  Nineveh  (of 
which  we  have  several  copies  in  a  more  or  less  perfect  state, 
and  varying  from  each  other,  both  in  arrangement  and  extent), 
there  are  three  names,  which  are  uniformly  grouped  together 
and  which  we  read  Manatsuah,  Magida  [Megiddo],  and  Du'ar 
[Dor].  As  these  names  are  associated  with  those  of  Samaria, 
Damascus,  Arpad,  Hamath,  Carchemish,  HadracJi,  Zobah, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  position  of  the  cities."  ^ 

The  resting-place  of  the  oracle  was  to  be  the  city  of 
Damascus,  that  is,  as  the  sequel  of  the  prophecy  shows,  the 
judgments  of  God  mentioned  therein  were  to  commence  at 
that  cit)^  The  pronoun  his  or  its  (verse  i,  rendered  "thereof" 
in  the  Engl.  Vers.)  must  refer  to  the  oracle.  This  is  clear, 
whether  the  expression  "his  rest"^  be  understood,  in  a  good 
sense,  to  indicate  the  conversion  of  the  people  of  that  city  or 

'  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  v.  p.  51. 

2  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  in  the  Athencsum  for  Aug.  22,  1863,  quoted  by  Dr.  Pusey 
in  his  Minor  Prophets,  p.  550.  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  says  in  a  note,  also  quoted  by 
Pusey :  "  From  the  position  on  the  lists  I  should  be  inclined  to  identify  it 
(Hadrach)  with  Plorus  or  Edessa,  which  was  certainly  a  very  ancient  capital 
(being  the  Kedesh  of  the  Egyptian  records),  and  which  would  not  otherwise  be 
represented  in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions."  M.  Adolf  Neubauer  in  his  GeographU 
dji  Talmjtd,  pp.  297-8.  says  that  Cyrill  of  Alexandria  places  Hadrach  between 
Hamath  and  Damascus,  and  notes  that  Ptolemy  knows  of  a  locality  Adarin  in 
the  environs.  In  a  note  M.  Neubauer  observes  tliat  the  Karaite  lexicographer 
David  ben  Abraham,  of  the  lOth  century  (comp.  Pinsker,  Likkute  Kadmonioth, 
p.  117  of  the  text,  and  Neubauer's  Notice  of  Hebrew  Lexicography,  Journ.  As. 
1861,  t.  ii.  p.  465,  ff.)  also  places  Hadrach  at  Damascus.  He  notes  too  a  statement 
made  in  the  MS.  Oxford  Bodl.  0pp.  Add.  fol.  25,  that  there  was  at  Damascus  a 
fine  mosque  called  Mcsdjcd  cl-Khadra,  which  had  given  the  name  to  that  city  (see 
crit.  comm.),  Hadrach,  according  to  this  lexicographer,  was  a  suburb  of  Damascus. 

3  The  original  word  translated  "rest"  is  indeed  "commonly  used  of  quiet 
peaceful  resting,  especially  as  given  by  God  to  Israel"  (Pusey).  But  it  seems 
scarcely  possible  to  regard  the  prophet  "purposely  to  have  chosen  a  word  of  large 
meaning,  which  should  at  once  express  (as  he  had  before  IT'jn,  Zech  vi.  8)  that  the 
word  of  God  should  fall  heavily  on  Damascus  and  yet  be  its  resting-place"  (Pusey)  ; 
or  to  hold  that  there  is  any  reference  whatever  to  the  fact  that  "  Damascus  on  the 
conversion  of  S.  Paul  became  the  first  resting-place  of  the  word  of  God,  the  first- 
fruits  of  the  Gentiles  whom  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  gathered  from  east  to 
west  throughout  the  world  "  (Pusey).     See  also  our  remarks  on  Zech.  vi.  8. 


Ch.  ix.  I.]  THE   PREPARATION    OF   THE    LAND.  20/ 

neighbourhood  (as  the  Targum  seems  to  think),  a  fact  which 
would  scarcely  be  spoken  of  in  such  an  enigmatical  manner ; 
or  whether  the  descent  of  the  oracle,  "its  rest,"  be  used  in  the 
signification  of  the  lighting  down  of  God's  wrath  and  anger, 
as  in  Jer.  xlix.  38,  where  in  allusion  to  his  judgment  impend- 
ing over  Elam,  God  says  :  "  I  will  set  my  throne  in  Elam."^ 

The  words  that  follow  assign  the  ground  why  Damascus  and 
the  land  of  Hadrach  were  thus  to  be  visited  with  judgment. 
But  in  the  translation  of  the  second  clause  there  is  a  con- 
siderable variety  of  rendering.  Passing  over  the  conjectural 
emendations  proposed  by  Fliigge,  Michaelis,  and  others,  which 
have  been  rejected  by  later  scholars,  as  destitute  of  all 
authority,  we  note  that,  so  far  as  translation  is  concerned, 
the  easiest  rendering  of  the  passage  and  that  most  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Hebrew  accentuation,  is  that  which  occurs  in  our 
Authorised  Version,  "  When,"  or  "  for,"  "  the  eyes  of  man,  as  of 
all  (or,  "and  of  all ")  the  tribes  of  Israel,  shall  be  toward  the 
Lord."  This  supposes  an  antithesis  to  be  drawn  between  inati 
in  general  and  the  tribes  of  Israel  in  particular,  i.e.,  between 
Jews  and  Gentiles  (comp.  Jer.  xxxii.  30).  The  passage  thus 
translated  has  been  supposed  to  speak  of  the  conversion  both 
of  Jews  and  Gentiles  (Pusey).  But  such  a  signification  is  op- 
posed to  the  context.  Von  Hofmann's  translation,  "  Jahaveh 
is  the  fountain  of  Adam,  i.e.,  of  humanity,  and  of  all  the  tribes 
of  Israel,"  deserves  no  more  than  mention.  The  other  trans- 
lation, supported  by  the  LXX.,  the  Syr.,  and  the  Targ.,  is 
adopted  with  slight  variations  by  Rosenmiiller,  Ewald,  Hitzig, 
Hengstenberg,  and  Kohler :  "  For  to  Jahaveh  is  an  eye  (that 
is,  Jahaveh  has  an  eye)  overman  and  all  the  tribes  of  Israel," 

1  Umbreit  regards  the  expression  "Damascus  is  his  resting-place  "  to  be  ironical, 
referring  the  suffix  his  to  Jahaveh,  as  much  as  to  say,  the  Lord's  resting-place  was 
once  Jerusalem  (Isa.  xi.  10),  now  it  will  be  Damascus  because  it  is  so  beautiful, 
the  thought,  however,  being  conveyed  beneath  the  words  that  the  Lord  will  dwell 
there  indeed  to  punish  the  people  of  that  place.  But  this  opinion  is  scarcely  ten- 
able. 


208  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS   rROPIIFXIES.  [Ch.  ix.  i. 

i.e.,  Jahaveh  sees  what  man  is  doing,  both  the  Gentiles  and 
also  his  people  Israel  ;  he  sees  the  pride  and  idolatry  of  the 
Gentiles  and  their  crimes  against  his  people,  and  hence  the 
sentence  of  judgment  pronounced  against  the  Gentiles  in 
the  oracle,  which  is  a  denunciation  of  wrath,  though  no 
doubt  intermingled  with  prophecies  of  the  future  repentance 
of  the  Gentiles  and  of  their  reception  into  the  number  of 
the  people  of  God.  But  while  immediate  judgments  were 
threatened  against  the  Gentiles,  gracious  promises  are  made 
to  the  members  of  the  family  of  Israel. 

This  translation  has  the  advantage  of  coinciding  with  the 
context  in  which  the  passage  occurs,  and  it  can  be  justified,  as 
far  as  its  meaning  is  concerned,  by  a  reference  to  other  pas- 
sages, such  as  Jer.  xxxii.  19,  where  the  Lord  is  described  as 
"  great  in  counsel  and  mighty  in  work,  for  thine  eyes  are  open 
upon  all  the  ways  of  the  sons  of  men  ;  to  give  every  one 
according  to  his  ways,  and  according  to  the  fruit  of  his 
doings."  The  construction  is,  however,  decidedly  harsh,  as 
even  Hitzig  confesses,  though  instances  may  be  cited  of  similar 
genitives  of  the  object  (see  crit.  comm.). 

It  is,  however,  possible,  by  a  slight  modification  of  the  ren- 
dering given  in  our  Authorised  Version,  to  avoid  the  difficulties 
by  which  that  translation  is  surrounded,  and  to  bring  the 
whole  passage  into  harmony  with  the  prophecy  which  follows. 
Thus  Klicfoth  translates,  "  For  to  Jahaveh  is  (that  is,  belongs) 
the  eye  of  man  {I.e.,  all  men),  as  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel," 
which  he  thus  explains  :  all  men  will  have  to  look  to  Jahaveh, 
just  as  Israel  does,  and  so  also  will  Hadrach  and  Damascus 
have  to  look  to  him,  and  to  expect  judgment  as  well  as  mercy 
from  the  word  of  his  mouth.  Or  it  might  be  even  more  simply 
rendered  :  "  For  to  Jahaveh  will  the  eye  of  man  be  directed, 
and  that  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel,"  i.e.,  when  the  fulfilment  of 
the  oracle  takes  place  upon  Hadrach  and  Damascus,  and  the 
wrath  of  God  descends  upon  those  cities  and  districts,  the  eyes 


Ch.  ix.  I,  2.]        THE   PREPARATION   OF   THE   LAND.  209 

of  the  nations  as  well  as  those  of  the  people  of  Israel  will 
look  towards  Jahaveh,  and  marvel  at  the  wonders  of  judgment 
which  will  then  be  performed  in  their  sight  in  accordance  with 
the  solemn  warnings  of  the  prophet.  This  latter  appears  to 
be  the  more  easy  interpretation. 

Thus  the  prophecy  need  not  be  regarded  as  predicting  the 
conversion  of  the  several  Gentile  nations  referred  to,  still  less 
as  setting  forth  the  conversion  of  all  Israel  at  the  end  of  the 
Messianic  dispensation,  as  Chamberlain  has  asserted.  Such 
prophecies  would  be  out  of  place  in  this  context.  It  merely 
states  that,  when  the  judgments  threatened  would  be  executed, 
both  Jews  and  Gentiles  would  observe  that  such  visitations 
came  from  the  hand  of  God.  The  Jewish  captives  in  Babylon 
and  the  Israelite  captives  by  the  rivers  of  the  Medes  took  the 
deepest  interest  in  all  the  events  connected  with  Nebuchad- 
nezzar's attack  on  Judah  and  with  his  siege  of  Jerusalem,  and 
at  one  period  many  of  them  regarded  that  struggle  with  hope- 
ful anticipations.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted  that,  wherever  Jews 
or  Israelites  were  settled  throughout  the  vast  extent  of  the 
Persian  empire,  they  must  also  have  listened  with  awe  and 
wonder  (as  well  as  the  nations  in  whose  midst  they  were 
settled)  to  the  story  of  the  triumphant  progress  of  Alexander 
the  Great  as  he  swept  aside  one  by  one  all  the  various  obstacles 
placed  in  his  path,  and  proceeded  from  conquest  to  conquest, 
along  the  sea  coast  of  Syria  and  through  the  various  cities  of 
the  Holy  Land.  Bound  by  all  the  ties  of  patriotism  and  reli- 
gion to  the  land  and  city  of  their  forefathers,  even  though  they 
had  not  chosen  to  return  thither  themselves,  the  dispersed 
Israelites  must  have  heard  with  awe  how  the  holy  city  had 
been  preserved  among  the  troubles  of  that  period,  while  the 
proud  cities  of  Syria,  Phoenicia,  and  the  Philistines,  experienced 
the  powerful  lighting  down  of  the  conqueror's  arm. 

The  clause,  "and  even  Hamath  shall  border  on  it,"  is  not 
to   be    regarded    as    independent,   but  as    closely   connected 

r 


2IO  ZECIIARIAEI    AND    HIS    rROI'IIECIES.  [Cli.  ix.  2-4. 

with  "  and  Damascus  shall  be  its  dwelling-place."  The  pro- 
noun "  it  "  probably  refers  to  Damascus.  The  meaning  of 
the  clause  is  thought  by  some  to  be,  that  Hamath,  being 
near  Damascus  in  place,  and  like  that  city  in  character, 
should  also  share  in  the  judgment  denounced  against  that 
district  (Pusey).  As,  however,  the  verse  speaks  further  of 
Tyre  and  Sidon,  it  is  more  natural  to  regard  the  words,  "  the 
oracle  of  the  word  of  the  Lord  upon,"  to  be  understood 
before  each  of  the  cities  specially  mentioned.  In  the  latter 
verse  the  clause  must  be  rendered,  "  and  even  upon  Hamath 
which  borders  upon  it,"  that  is,  whose  boundaries  are  near 
to  those  of  Damascus.  Or,  we  might  mentally  supply  after 
each  the  words,  "  shall  be  the  rest  or  dwelling-place  thereof/' 
which  would  come  to  the  same  thing.^ 

The  phrase  has  been  understood  by  the  Targum,  Kimchi, 
and  others,  to  indicate  that  the  various  places  mentioned  by 
the  prophet  should  be  ultimately  "  included  among  the  cities 
of  Judah,  and  should  be  in  the  faith  of  Israel  "  (Kimchi).  But 
the  lighting  down  of  the  oracle  upon  (comp.  Isa.  ix.  7,  8) 
Hamath  and  Damascus  must  necessarily  be  understood  as 
similar  to  the  descent  of  the  prophecy  upon  Tyre  and  Sidon, 
etc.  In  the  latter  case  a  descent  of  wrath  and  not  of  mercy 
is  referred  to,  and  such,  therefore,  must  be  understood  when 
Hamath  and  Damascus  are  spoken  of. 

Having  mentioned  the  Syrian  cities  over  which  the  threat- 
ened storm  was  to  burst,  the  prophet  next  speaks  of  Tyre  and 
Sidon.  These  cities,  for  the  phrase  seems  to  be  used  distri- 
butively  of  both  (see  Ges.  Gr.,  §  146,  4),  were  in  their  own 
esteem,  and  in  that  of  others,  "very  wise."  Their  wisdom 
was  seen  in  the  riches  they  had  heaped  up  for  many  }^cars, 
and   in   the   case  of  Tyre,  in   the   powerful   fortifications    by 

*  Schcgg  translates  "  Hamath  also  lies  in  its  borders,"  that  is,  forms  a  portion  of 
that  land  upon  which  the  burden  of  tlie  Divine  judgments  should  spread  itself. 
Compare  Vulg.  "  Onus  verbi  Domini  in  terra  lladrach,  ct  Damasci  requiei  ejus." 


Ch.  ix.  3,  4]        THE   PREPARATION    OF   THE   LAND.  211 

which  that  great  merchant  city  sought  to  secure  her  wealth. 
"  And  Tyre  built  for  herself  a  fortress,^  and  heaped  up 
silver  as  the  dust,  and  gold  as  the  mire  of  the  streets."  Tyre, 
though  a  colony  of  Sidon,  had  far  surpassed  the  mother  city 
in  riches  and  power,  and  in  order  to  be  doubly  secure,  the 
Tyrians  had  constructed  a  city  and  fortress  on  the  small 
island  which  was  opposite  to  the  city  on  the  mainland.  Bot  i 
were  strongly  fortified.  But  the  prophet  announced  the  in- 
sufficiency of  all  such  human  wisdom.  "  Behold  the  Lord 
will  take  possession  of  her  (or  will  dispossess  her,  drive  her 
out  of  her  possessions— the  word  is  capable  of  various  trans- 
lations), and  will  smite  her  might  {i.e.,  her  military  power, 
or  her  bulwark,  bastion)  in  the  sea."  The  latter  clause  may 
refer  to  the  maritime  power  of  the  Phoenicians  (Hezel),  or 
may  be  understood  to  refer  to  the  island  fortress  of  Tyre  in 
which  the  chief  strength  of  the  city  consisted  (Kohler)."  The 
ultimate  fate  of  the  island  city  was  summed  up  by  the  prophet 
in  one  expression,  "  and  she  shall  be  burned  with  fire." 

If  the  reference  of  a  prophecy  can  be  judged  of  by  the 
event,  there  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  to  what  period  this 
prophecy  must  refer.  The  judgments  denounced  against 
Damascus,  Hadrach  and  Hamath,  are  expressed  in  such 
general  terms  that  several  events  which  occurred  at  very 
different  periods  might  be  adduced  as  fulfilments  of  the 
prophecy.  But  the  prophecies  referring  to  Tyre  were  not 
accomplished  until  the  capture  and  destruction  of  that  city 
by  Alexander  the  Great.  Tyre  was  unsuccessfully  attacked 
during  the  supremacy  of  the  Assyrian  power,  by  Shalmanezer. 

^  The  paranomasia  in  the  original  may  be  somewhat  imitated  in  our  language 
by  translating,  "  Tyre  built  for  herself  a  tower"  though  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  Hebrew  word  has  a  much  wider  signification  than  the  English  "  toiuer." 

*  See  for  Ewald's  translation,  and  the  objections  to  it,  our  crit.  comm.  His 
rendering  also  of  the  noun  in  the  second  clause  of  n?''n  as  her  riches  is  doubt- 
ful, because  it  is  questionable  whether  the  word  occurs  in  that  signification,  and 
because  the  phrase  to  strike  riches  would  be  a  strange  one,  and  would  scarcely  be 
used  in  the  sense  of  casting  riches  into  the  sea. 


212  ZECIIARIAII    AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.        [Ch.  ix.  3,  4- 

It  was  again  besieged  for  many  years  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
and  it  is  still  a  matter  of  doubt  whether  it  was  actually  taken 
by  that  monarch.  It  is  indeed  highly  probable  that  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, though  he  failed  in  his  attack  on  the  island  for- 
tress, was  so  far  successful  as  to  gain  possession  of  the  city  on 
the  mainland,  which  was  possibly  denuded  of  all  that  was 
valuable,  and  that  the  Tyrians  after  the  loss  of  the  city  on 
the  mainland  made  peace  with  the  Chaldean  monarch  on 
favourable  terms.  But  it  is  certain  that  if  Tyre  was  captured 
at  all  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  it  was  not  then  burned  with  fire, 
her  sea-girt  fortress  was  not  destroyed,  nor  her  naval  power 
ruined.  Though  she  may  have  lost  her  independence,  she 
did  not  lose  the  important  position  she  occupied  as  the 
greatest  commercial  and  naval  city  in  the  world,  and  the 
naval  power  of  the  Phoenicians  proved  in  the  Persian  period 
of  the  greatest  possible  importance  to  that  empire. 

The  case  was  very  different  when  Alexander  the  Great, 
having  completely  shattered  the  might  of  Persia  in  the 
decisive  battle  of  Issus,  marched  with  his  victorious  army 
into  Syria.  Alexander  directed  the  main  division  of  his 
army  against  Phoenicia,  while  he  dispatched  Parmenio  with 
a  strong  detachment  to  operate  against  Damascus.  Damas- 
cus, where  Darius  had  deposited  his  riches,  opened  its  gates 
to  that  general,  who  overran  all  the  land  of  Iladrach,  and 
must  also  necessarily  have  occupied  Hamath,  which  probably 
ubmitted  without  a  struggle.  Sidon  surrendered  without 
making  any  resistance,  but  Tyre,  after  a  vain  attempt  at 
negotiation,  ventured  to  resist.  Proudly  confident  in  the 
strength  of  their  island  fortress,  the  Tyrians  mocked  the 
attempts  of  Alexander  to  reduce  their  city.  Every  engine 
of  war  suited  for  defence  had  been  stored  up  in  their  bul- 
warks, and  every  device  which  their  skilful  engineers  could 
suggest  was  had  recourse  to,  and  for  a  time  with  marked 
success.     "  Ye  despise  this  land-army  through  ^confidence  in 


Ch.  ix.  3-5]        THE    PREPARATION    OF    THE   LAND.  213 

the  place  that  ye  dwell  in  is  an  island,  but  I  will  show  you 
that  ye  dwell  on  a  continent"  was  the  language  of  Alexander. 
(Q.  Curtius,  De  Rebus  Gest.  Alex.  Magn.  iv.  2).  The  shallow 
channel  between  the  mainland  and  the  island  was  at  last 
bridged  over  by  a  huge  dam  of  earth  erected  after  repeated 
failures,  and  the  city  which  had  stood  a  five  years'  siege 
from  the  Assyrians,  a  thirteen  years'  siege  from  the  Chal- 
daeans,  was  taken  after  a  short  siege  of  seven  months  by 
Alexander.  Ten  thousand  of  its  brave  defenders  were  either 
massacred  or  crucified,  the  rest  were  sold  into  slavery,  none 
escaped  save  those  who  were  concealed  by  the  Sidonians  in 
the  ships.  Q.  Curtius  adds  distinctly  (iv.  4)  that  "  Alexander 
having  slain  all,  save  those  who  fled  to  the  temples,  ordered 
the  houses  to  be  set  on  fire." 

The  city  of  Tyre  was  afterwards  repeopled  by  fresh  settlers, 
and  recovered  some  of  its  prosperity.  During  the  reigns  of  the 
Seleucidian  monarchs  it  rose  again  to  considerable  importance. 
But  the  prophecy  of  Zechariah  had  been  fulfilled  to  the  letter. 
The  city  lost  its  insular  position  ;  for  the  mole  of  Alexander 
was  never  removed,  and  covered  over  and  strengthened  by 
deposits  of  sand  and  other  matter,  it  remains  even  to  this 
day,  a  monument  of  the  execution  of  the  Divine  wrath  upon 
the  proud,  luxurious,  and  idolatrous  city. 

But  mention  is  made  not  only  of  the  judgments  which  fell 
upon  the  cities  of  Phoenicia  and  on  those  of  northern  Syria, 
but  also  of  the  calamities  which  at  the  same  time  befel  the 
cities  of  Philistia.  "  Let  Ashkelon  see  it,  and  she  will  fear, 
and  Gaza,  and  she  will  tremble  (writhe  in  an  agony  of  terror); 
and  Ekron,  for  her  hope  (expectation)  shall  be  put  to  shame, 
and  a  king  shall  perish  from  Gaza,  and  Ashkelon  shall  not 
remain,"  or  "  be  inhabited."  ^ 

^  The  meaning  of  the  phrase  ^V.'D  ^  is  uncertain.  It  may  signify  "shall  not 
remain,"  that  is,  in  her  present  condition  as  an  inhabited  city.  Gesenius  regards  it 
as  used  intransitively  in  Isa.  xiii.  20;  Jer.  xvii.  6,  25  ;  Ezek.  xxvi.  20;  and  also 
Fiirst.     The  verb  does  not  occur  in  Jer.  xxxiii.  16,  a  reference  given  by  mistake  in 


214  ZECHARIAII    AND    HIS    rROPIIECIES.         [Ch.  ix.  4,  5. 

The  overthrow  of  Tyre,  especially  after  such  a  siege,  must 
have  caused  great  consternation  among  most  of  the  cities  of 
the  south.  They  thought,  no  doubt,  that  the  strength  of  Tyre 
would  form  a  bulwark  under  which  they  might  find  protection 
from  the  Macedonian  invasions,  but  when  they  saw  her  fall 
they  at  length  lost  all  hope  (Cyrill  ap.  Hengstenberg). 

No  special  mention  is  made  of  Ashkelon  or  Ekron  in 
connection  with  the  march  of  Alexander,  though  they  must 
naturally  have  been  occupied  by  the  Macedonian  troops. 
The  case  of  Gaza  was  very  different.^  Strongly  fortified  and 
occupying  an  important  position,  its  very  name,  "  the  strong," 
testified  to  its  natural  strength.  Despite,  therefore,  of  the 
terror  caused  by  the  overthrow  of  Tyre,  Gaza  ventured  to 
resist  Alexander,  and  was  not  reduced  to  submission  until 
after  five  months.  Its  king  perished,  and  the  city  lost  that 
semi-independence,  which  it  seems  to  have  had  under 
the    Persian    empire.      For    the    Persians,    like    their    prede- 

the  last  edit,  of  Gesenius'  Lex.,  by  Miihlau  and  Volck,  for  J^t^^  is  tliere  used. 
Zech.  vii.  7  is  a  better  instance  of  the  intransitive  use  of  tiie  verb,  for  which 
Jer.  1.  13,  39,  have  also  been  cited.  In  most  of  these  passages  "sit,"  or 
"remain,"  is  preferable,  and  it  is  the  translation  given  generally  by  Ewald. 
Jer.  xvii.  6  has  been  translated  by  Kohler,  "  And  he  will  dwell  in  a  barren  place 
in  the  wilderness,  and  in  a  land  which  is  salt,  and  where  thou  canst  not  dwell." 
Kohler  and  Ewald  both  translate  in  Zech.  ix.,  "  shall  not  remain."  The  matter  is 
too  uncertain  to  allow  any  such  argument  to  be  drawn  from  it  as  Chamberlain 
has  clone  (in  his  Notes  on  the  Restoration  and  Conversion  of  Israel),  that, 
because  Ashkelon  has  not  been  utterly  destroyed,  therefore  the  prophecy  is  to  be 
reckoned  as  one  which  refers  to  a  still  future  age.  The  language  used  of  cities  is 
generally  designed  to  refer  to  their  inhabitants,  and  the  inhabitants  of  Ashkelon 
and  their  city  did  not  remain  in  a  quiet  condition  at  the  era  referred  to.  Ashkelon 
was  taken  by  Jonathan  Maccabeus  without  resistance  (l  Mace.  x.  86),  and  is  spoken 
of  afterwards  as  being  friendly  disposed  to  the  Jewish  patriots  (i  Mace.  xi.  60, 
xii  33).  The  modern  town  of  Ashkelon,  which  Herod  adonied  and  which  became 
afterwards  of  importance  in  post-biblical  times,  was  situated  on  the  shore,  and 
probably  occupied  a  different  site  from  the  ancient  city  of  that  name.  Jer.  xlvii.  7 
is  not  sufficient  to  prove  that  Ashkelon  was  originally  a  maritime  city. 

'  Four  of  the  five  cities  of  the  Philistines  are  mentioned  here.  Gath  is  not 
spoken  of  in  the  later  prophets.  It  seems  sometimes  to  have  belonged  to  the 
kingdom  of  Judah  (2  Chron.  xi.  8),  and  at  other  times  for  long  intervals  to  have 
been  a  Philistine  city.  It  may  ultimately  have  been  incorporated  with  the  king- 
dom of  Judah.     But  note  2  Chron.  xxvi.  6. 


Ch.  ix.  4,  5]         THE   PREPARATION   OF   THE   LAND.  215 

cessors,  the  Assyrians  and  the  Babylonians,  were  wont  to 
permit  many  of  the  cities  and  districts  which  formed  a  por- 
tion of  their  empire  to  retain  a  state  of  semi-independence. 
Hence  frequent  mention  is  made  of  kings  subject  to  the 
Persian  king  of  kings.  Herodotus,  in  his  description  of  the 
battle  of  Salamis,  mentions  the  kings  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  and 
the  other  sovereigns  of  the  nations  who  sat  in  a  prescribed 
order  round  the  throne  of  Xerxes  {Herod.,  viii.  67).  He  too, 
speaks  of  Damasithmys  the  Calyndian  king  (viii.  Z']),  and  of 
Queen  Artemisia  (vii.  99).  Other  writers  give  similar  in- 
stances. Xenophon  mentions  the  wife  of  Syennesis  the  king  of 
the  Cilicians  {Auab.,  I.  ii.  12) ;  Diodorus  Siculus  (xvi.  42)  and 
Arrian  (ii.  20)  speak  of  the  vassal  kings  of  Cyprus  ;  the  latter 
writer  also  of  the  king  o{  Aradus  and  the  king  of  Byblus. 
Similarly  Josephus,  in  narrating  Alexander's  march  to  Jeru- 
salem after  the  capture  of  Gaza,  speaks  of  "  the  kings  of 
Syria  "  who  were  in  his  train  {Antiq.  Jud.,  xi.  8,  §  5). 

Special  mention  is  made  of  the  king  of  Gaza  having  been 
brought  alive  to  Alexander  by  Leonatus  and  Philotas  after 
the  capture  of  that  city.^  Hegesias  seems  to  refer  to  Betis,  or 
Batis,  whom  Dionysius  himself  styles  only  a  leader  {;))'ye[jb(iiv,) 
but  apparently  without  seeing  anything  strange  in  the  same 
man  being  also  styled  "  king  "  by  Hegesias.  Josephus,  in- 
deed, calls  this  same  individual  only  the  commandant 
((f)poupap)(^o<i)  of  the  fortress  {Antiq.,  xi.  8,  §  3).  But  as 
Kohler  observes,  the  evidence  of  Josephus  on  this  point  does 
not  appear  of  importance  against  the  testimony  of  Hegesias, 
as  the  Jewish  historian  has  entirely  altered  the  name  of  that 
commander,  and  changed  it  to  Babymeses.  Arrian  {Exped. 
Alex.,  ii.  25),  however,  speaks  of  Batis  as  a  eumicJi,  but  "he 
describes  the  position  and  conduct  of  Batis  in  such  a  manner 
that  one  sees  that  Batis  had  assumed  in"  Gaza  a  relatively 

'  Hegesias,  in  a  fragment  preserved  by  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  in  his  De  conip. 
verb.  cap.  18  {Opera,  Oxon.  1704).     He  was  a  contemporary  of  Alexander. 


3l6  ZECIIARTAIl    AND    IIIS    PROrilECIF.S.        [Ch.  ix.  5,  6. 

very  independent  position  ;  he  names  him  not  only  as  the 
ruler  of  the  city  of  Gaza  (KparMv  t/}?  Ta^alcov  Trokew^),  but 
also  says  concerning  him,  that  he  did  not  give  heed  to 
Alexander  {ov  irpoa-el-x^ev  'AXe^dvBpai),  but  had  hired  Arabian 
mercenaries  in  order  to  make  resistance  "  (Kohler,  note  p.  30). 
Hengstenberg's  opinion,  that  at  Gaza  there  may  have  been 
"a  native  king  in  existence  at  the  same  time"  as  Batis, 
cannot  be  maintained  in  the  face  of  these  statements  of 
Arrian.  But  even  if  Batis  were  a  eunuch,  it  is  not  at  all 
impossible,  that  in  order  to  secure  the  stronghold  of  Gaza 
at  this  important  juncture,  the  Persian  king  may  have  de- 
throned the  native  king  of  Gaza,  and  given  his  authority  and 
title  to  a  confidential  commander,  in  order  the  better  to 
secure  his  fidelity  to  Persian  interests.  The  evidence  is 
tolerably  strong  in  support  of  the  idea  that  the  commandant 
of  Gaza  bore  the  title  of  king.  Alexander  was  not  likely  to 
permit  the  retention  of  such  a  title,  as  he  aimed  at  the 
creation  of  a  thoroughly  compact  empire,  and  his  policy  was 
in  such  respects  the  reverse  of  that  of  the  Persian  monarch. 
It  is  scarcely  fair  for  Bleek,  in  his  article  on  the  age  of  this 
special  prophecy,  to  pass  over  the  evidence  adduced  to  show 
that  the  commandant  of  Gaza  bore  the  royal  title,  while  he 
argues  from  the  fact  that  this  passage  speaks  of  a  "  king " 
in  Gaza,  that  the  composition  of  the  prophecy  must  be 
ascribed  to  a  date  previous  to  the  Assyrian  conquest  of  the 
territory  of  the  Philistines. 

The  prophet  further  threatens  that  a  mixed  race,  a  people  of 
ignoble  birth,  or,  as  Hengstenberg  not  unsuitably  renders  it, 
"  a  rabble,"  should  dwell  in  the  city  of  Ashdod,  another  of 
the  famed  cities  of  the  Philistines.  The  word  thus  trans- 
lated, or  paraphrased,  occurs  also  in  Deut.  xxiii.  3  (A.V. 
verse  2),  and  is  rendered  there  by  the  LXX.,  Syr.,  Targ.,  and 
Vulg.,  by  "  a  bastard,"  while  those  ancient  versions  render  it 
here  by  "  a  foreigner."      Fiirst   denies  the  propriety  of  the 


Ch.  ix.  6,  7-]       THE   PREPARATION    OF   THE   LAND,  21/ 

variation  in  translation,  which  is,  however,  approved  by 
Gesenius.  The  word  is  used  in  Zechariah  merely  as  a  term 
of  reproach.  It  signifies  properly  one  of  mixed  or  ignoble 
birth,  but  not  necessarily  one  illegitimately  born.^  Thus 
it  is  suitably  used  to  denote  a  mixed  race,  half  Jew  half 
Philistine  (comp.  Neh.  xiii.  23,  24).  It  would  appear  that 
the  Philistines  were  wont  to  pride  themselves  upon  their 
nationality,  their  prowess,  and  their  independence.  Their 
pride  would  be  humbled  by  Gaza's  being  deprived  of  any 
ruler  bearing  the  name  of  king,  by  the  city  of  Ashkelon 
being  removed  from  its  ancient  place,  and  by  Ashdod  being 
inhabited  by  a  mixed  and  bastard  population. 

We  cannot  point  out  any  special  fulfilment  of  this  portion 
of  the  prophecy  in  connection  with  the  Macedonian  conquest. 
It  seems  to  have  been  partially  fulfilled  at  an  earlier  period  ; 
though  it  is  possible  that  in  consequence  of  the  Greek  con- 
quest the  population  of  Ashdod  became  even  more  mixed 
than  before.  For  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  breaking 
up  of  petty  nationalities  and  the  fusion  of  different  peoples, 
was  one  of  the  very  points  which  Alexander  specially 
encouraged,  while  Oriental  conquerors,  such  as  the  Assyrians, 
Babylonians,  and  Medo-Persians,  did  not,  except  on  specia 
occasions,  seek  to  interfere  in  such  matters  with  the  nations 
subject  to  their  authority. 

In  the  next  verse  (verse  7)  the  prophet  gives  again  expres- 
sion to  an  idea  which  more  or  less  pervades  the  earlier  and 
later  chapters  of  this  book,  and  which  we  must  regard  as 
a  striking  though  undesigned  evidence  of  the  unity  of  its 
authorship.  That  idea  is  the  ultimate  incorporation  of  the 
Gentiles  into  the  people  of  Israel.  The  prophet  states  that 
the  national  downfall  and  final  humiliation  of  the  Philistines 
would  be  overruled  to  the  good  of  the  remnant  of  that 
people.     When   the  lofty  looks  of  the   Philistines  should  be 

^  See  our  crit.  comm. 


2l8  ZECIIARIAII    AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  ix.  6,  7. 

humbled,  and  their  haughtiness  brought  down  (Isa.  ii.  11), 
blessings  would  be  vouchsafed  even  to  them.  The  prophet 
speaks  of  nothing  less  than  a  general,  though  it  might  be  a 
gradual,  conversion  of  the  Philistines  to  Jahaveh.  Such  a 
prediction,  as  Kohler  well  observes  (note  on  p.  45),  "  is 
unheard  of  in  the  writings  of  the  pre-exilian  prophets,  for 
the  Philistines  dwelt  in  a  portion  of  the  land  which  had  been 
promised  to  Israel  (comp.  Num.  xxxiv.  4-6;  Josh.  xv.  45,  fif.), 
and  belonged,  therefore,  to  the  peoples  whose  extermination 
or  expulsion  had  been  decreed  (comp.  P2xod.  xxxiv.  ii,  ff .  ; 
Josh.  xiii.  1-6)." 

Now,  however,  the  word  of  Divine  promise  towards  that 
people  was  :  "  I  will  take  away  his  blood  from  his  mouth,  and 
his  abominations  from  between  his  teeth,  and  even  he  will 
remain  for  our  God,  and  he  will  be  as  a  prince  in  Judah,  and 
Ekron  as  a  Jebusite."  The  person  referred  to  in  the  expres- 
sions, "his  blood,"  "  his  abominations,"  and  in  the  emphatic 
"  he  "  which  occurs  in  the  clause  following,  can  hardly  be,  as 
Hitzig  imagines,  "  the  bastard,"  spoken  of  in  the  earlier  part 
of  the  preceding  verse,  though  that  view  is  grammatically 
admissible  ;  it  must  rather  be  the  Philistines  mentioned  in 
the  second  clause  of  that  verse,  and  personified  as  an  indi- 
vidual. The  Philistines  are  not  to  be  considered  as  likened  to 
a  wild  beast  from  whose  teeth  the  prey  is  torn  away  (Neu- 
mann), nor  does  the  word  blood  refer  to  the  human  blood 
which  was  shed  by  the  Philistines  at  different  times.  The  word 
"  abominations  "  used  in  the  parallel  clause  shows  that  the 
prophet  refers  rather  to  the  blood  of  their  idolatrous  sacrifices, 
which  was  to  be  taken  away  from  between  their  teeth  ;  not  as 
indicating  that  desperate  means  and  overwhelming  judgments 
were  needed  to  loosen  the  firm  grasp  with  which  they  held  to 
their  idolatrous  practices  (Hengstenberg),  but  rather  because 
the  worshippers  were  wont  to  feed  upon  a  jjortion  of  the  sacri- 
fices offered  up  to  their  idols  (Ilitzig,  Maurer,  Umbreit),  which 


Ch.  ix.  7-]  THE    PREPARATION    OF   THE   LAND.  219 

they  often  ate  with  the  blood  ;  and  that  hence,  as  a  preliminary 
requirement  to  their  incorporation  into  the  people  of  God,  all 
such  unclean  food  must  be  taken  away  from  between  their 
teeth.  The  broken-down  remnant  of  the  once  far-famed  Philis- 
tines would  be  joined  to  the  God  of  Israel,  whom  the  prophet 
styles  "our  God,"  and  in  such  a  manner  that  this  "  remnant  " 
would  enjoy  the  same  privileges  and  rights  as  the  chiefest 
nobles  among  the  chosen  people.  "  He  will  be  as  a  prince 
in  Judah  and  Ekron  as  the  Jebusite."^ 

Some  understand  the  Jebusites  to  be  here  referred  to. 
They  were  so  powerful  as  to  be  able  to  maintain  their 
stronghold  in  the  centre  of  Jerusalem  until  that  fortress 
was  reduced  by  the  military  skill  or  artifice  of  Joab  in  the 
time  of  David.  It  has  been  objected  that  the  prophet  could 
scarcely  have  referred  to  that  fact,  inasmuch  as  the  occu- 
pation of  Jerusalem  by  the  Jebusites  was  always  regarded 
as  a  thorn  in  the  side  of  Judah,  while  Zechariah  evidently 
does  not  mean  to  predict  that  the  Philistines  would  be  a 
similar  occasion  of  vexation  to  the  Jewish  people.  Hence 
the  Jcbiisite  has  been  regarded  by  Rosenmiiller,  Gesenius, 
etc.,  as  a  name  of  Jerusalem,  because  the  Gentilic  noun  is 
so  used  in  Josh.  xv.  8,  or  more  clearly  in  Josh,  xviii.  28. 
The  passage  would  then  predict  that  the  condition  of  the 
people  of  Ekron  would  be  equivalent  to  that  of  the  people  of 
Jerusalem  ;  in  other  words,  that  the  Jews  and  the  Philistines 
would  have  equal  privileges. 

It  is  best  perhaps  to  understand  by  "  the  Jebusite  "  the 
remnant  of  the  Canaanitish  tribes  who  in  the  time  of  David  and 
Solomon  became  incorporated  with  the  congregation  of  Israel 
(comp.  I  Kings  ix.  20,  21),  and,  having  embraced  the  religion 
of  Jahaveh,  helped  to  swell  the  numbers  of  the  "  Nethinim," 
of  whom  frequent  mention  is  made  in  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 
These    Nethinim     originally    consisted    of    the    Gibeonites 

On  the  word  »|1^5^,  here  translated  prince,  see  our  crit.  comm. 


220  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  ix.  7. 

(Josh,  ix.),  but  after  the  massacre  by  Saul  of  that  people 
(2  Sam.  xxi.  i),  the  ranks  of  the  Ncthinim  were  filled  up  by 
converts  from  among  the  heathen  (Neh.  x.  28,  29  ;  Ezra 
viii.  20).  Kohler  draws  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  children 
of  Solomon's  servants  were  reckoned  among  the  Nethinim 
fl*2zra  ii.  58  ;  Neh.  vii.  60),  the  servants  of  Solomon  referred 
to  having  been  themselves  individuals  of  Canaanitish  extrac- 
tion, or  belonging  to  other  Gentile  peoples  who  were  forced 
to  do  work  by  Solomon  (i  Kings  ix.  20).  ^ 

No  mention  is  made  of  any  considerable  conversion  of  the 
Philistines  to  the  Israelitish  religion  having  occurred  at  the 
time  of  the  Greek  conquest  of  the  Holy  Land  and  the  regions 
around.  The  Philistines,  however,  were  no  doubt  gradually 
absorbed  into  the  Jewish  population.  This  absorption  had 
begun  already  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  but  even  in  the  days 
of  the  Maccabees  the  Philistines  are  spoken  of  as  manifesting 
their  national  hostility  to  the  Jewish  nation  (i  Mace.  iii.  41), 
and  a  temple  of  Dagon  at  Ashdod,  which  belonged  to  the 
Philistines,  was  utterly  destroyed  by  Jonathan  (i  Mace.  x.  83, 
84).  After  that  time,  however,  the  name  of  Philistine,  as  the 
designation  of  a  separate  people,  disappears  from  the  page 
of  history,  probably,  because  they  were  no  longer  generally 
distinguished  from  the  Jewish  race,  or  from  the  Greek  settlers 
living  in  those  districts.  The  name  however  of  Philistia, 
which  was  originally  used  as  the  designation  of  the  country 
of  the  Philistines,  and  which  appears  in  the  Assyrian  inscrip- 
tions as  Filastav  or  Palastav,  became  afterwards  the  name 
of  the  entire  land  TlcCKxiLcnLvr],  or  Palestine,  and  is  so  termed 
by  Herodotus  and  Josephus. 

•  Hengstenberg  seems  to  be  mistaken  in  adducing  the  case  of  Araunah  the 
Jebusite  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  and  i  Chron.  xxi.)  as  a  proof  that  the  Jebusitcs  in  general 
adopted  the  Jewish  religion  in  the  days  of  David.  It  is  very  doubtful  wliether  the 
Jebusites  or  the  other  remnants  of  the  Canaanitish  tribes  did  in  general  really 
conform  to  the  worship  of  Jahaveh.  It  is  more  probable  that  these  people  for  the 
most  part  continued,  openly  at  some  times  and  secretly  at  others,  to  retain  down  to 
a  very  late  period  their  heallienisii  customs.     Comp.  Ezra  ix.  i,  2. 


Ch.  ix.  8.]  THE   FREPARATION    OF   THE   LAND.  221 

While  heavy  judgments,  resulting  in  the  case  of  the  Philis- 
tines in  ultimate  benefit  to  that  people,  were  thus  announced 
by  the  prophet  as  destined  to  fall  upon  the  north  and  south 
of  the  Holy  Land,  Zechariah  assures  the  Jewish  people 
(verse  8)  that  the  Lord  would  camp  around  his  house,  which 
had  been  newly  restored  and  dedicated,  "  because  of  the  army." 
The  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  word  or 
phrase  is  of  little  importance  as  regards  the  general  drift  of 
the  prophecy.  Whether  the  corrected  text  of  the  Masorites 
be  adopted  with  our  Authorised  Version,  or  the  translation  of 
Ewald  be  preferred,  "  I  encamp  around  my  house  as  a  wall," 
or  the  rendering  of -Bottcher  and  von  Ortenberg,  "  I  encamp 
myself  (with  my  band  of  angels)  in  my  house  as  an  entire 
garrison,"  or  whether  we  adopt  any  other  of  the  special 
renderings  which  have  been  proposed,  the  general  sense  of 
the  passage  is  the  same.  It  contains  a  promise  that  in  some 
way  or  other  protection  would  be  afforded  by  the  Lord  to  his 
house  and  people  at  a  special  time  of  danger  and  distress. 

Nor  is  it  of  much  importance  what  sense  may  be  assigned 
to  the  expression  "  my  house,"  whether  the  national  temple  at 
Jerusalem  be  supposed  to  be  alluded  to,  or  the  Jewish  people 
themselves.^  The  phrase  "because  of  him  that  passeth  to  and 
fro  "  occurs  only  four  times  in  the  Old  Testament  writings. 
It  is  found  twice  in  Zechariah  (chap.  vii.  14  and  ix.  8), 
which  fact,  as  the  expression  is  so  unusual,  has  justly  been 

^  The  plural  pronoun  in  the  following  clause  "  no  oppressor  shall  pass  through 
them  any  more  "  has  been  cited  as  a  proof  that  the  Jewish  people  is  signified  by 
"my  house."  The  pronoun  might,  however,  be  explained  as  a  simple,  and  not 
uncommon,  inaccuracy  of  expression.  But  if  the  words  "my  house"  refer  to 
the  temple,  the  temple  at  once  suggests  the  people  for  whose  sake  that  house 
itself  existed.  This  is  Kohler's  view.  He  considers  that  the  New  Testament 
use  of  the  expression  "  house  of  God  "  to  signify  the  assembly  of  God's  people 
is  not  found  in  the  Old  Testament.  But  that  seems  to  be  the  natural  meaning  of 
Num.  xii.  7,  even  if  the  passages  in  Hosea  viii.  i  and  Ps.  Ixix.  10  (especially  the 
latter)  must  be  considered  doubtful.  The  passage  in  Zech.  ix.  8  is  not  sufficiently 
clear  to  lead  to  any  decided  conclusion.  But  if  the  material  temple  be  meant, 
which  is  the  more  natural  view,  the  clause  which  follows,  rendered  by  Kohler 


222  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  ix.  8. 

noticed  as  an  indication  of  the  common  authorship  of  the  first 
and  second  portions  of  the  book.  The  phrase  occurs  also  in 
E.Kod.  xx.xii.  27  and  Ezck.  xx.xv.  7.  These  passages,  however, 
scarcely  justify  the  sense  here  assigned  ^  to  the  words  by 
Pusey,  "  because  of  him  that  passeth  by  and  of  him  that 
returneth,"  as  if  the  words  contained  a  prediction  of  "  Alex- 
ander who passci/  by  with  his  army  on  his  way  to  Egypt,  and 
returned,  having  founded  Alexandria."  Though  such  an  event 
nriay  be  included  in  the  general  terms  of  the  prophecy,  the 
expressions  made  use  of  are  far  too  indefinite  to  be  regarded 
as  a  distinct  prediction  of  that  event. 

The  clause  that  follows  is  of  peculiar  significance.  It  is 
rendered  in  our  Authorised  Version,  "  and  no  oppressor  shall 
pass  through  them  any  more  ;  for  now  have  I  seen  with  mine 
eyes."  The  word  translated  "  oppressor "  properly  means  a 
"  taskmaster,"  who  compels  slaves  to  perform  their  appointed 
tasks.  It  is  used  of  the  taskmasters  who  oppressed  the  Israel- 
ites in  Egypt  (Exod.  iii.  7  ;  v.  6,  10,  13),  and  is  met  with  in 
the  book  of  Job  in  the  same  signification  (Job  iii.  18),  as  well 
as  in  the  sense  of  a  cattle-driver  (Job  xxxix.  7).  In  the 
meaning  of  taskmaster,  the  term  is  used  by  Isaiah  (ix.  3, 
xiv.  4)  to  designate  the  oppressors  of  the  Israelitish  people. 
It  is  once  used  in  a  good  sense,  namely,  in  this  very  prophecy 
(Zech.  X.  4). 

The  meaning  of  the  passage  seems  to  be  that,  whatever 

might  be  the  peculiar  trials  and  troubles  which  the  people  of 

"that  no  one  shall  go  to  and  fro  over  it,"  might  be  regarded  as  giving  an  indica- 
tion as  to  the  date  at  which  the  prophecy  was  composed.  For  that  clause  might 
fairly  be  interpreted  to  mean  that  no  one  would  pass  to  and  fro  over  the  temple, 
as  if  it  were  a  common  road,  and  no  one  could  do  so,  unless  tlie  temple  had  been 
destroyed  and  laid  in  ruins.  The  prophecy  would  thus  appear  to  have  been 
written  in  post-exilian  times  after  the  temple  had  actually  undergone  that  de- 
gradation. Kijhler  would  also  derive  an  argument  in  favour  of  the  traditional  view 
of  the  authorship  of  the  prophecy  from  the  usage  of  the  expression  "  my  house  "  in 
the  signification  of  the  temple.  The  basis  on  which  the  argument  rests  is,  how- 
ever, too  slender  to  permit  much  weight  to  be  attached  to  it. 
'  See  our  note  on  chap.  vii.  14. 


Ch.  ix.  S.]  THE   PRErARATION    OF   THE   LAND.  223 

Israel  might  have  to  undergo  in  the  land  to  which  they  were 
so  graciously  restored,  they  would  not  again  be  reduced  to 
the  position  of  slaves,  as  had  been  the  case  under  their  Baby- 
lonian and  Persian  masters.  Amid  the  troubles  attendant  on 
the  Grecian  war  of  conquest  which  should  roll  over  the  land, 
the  prophet  predicts  that  the  Jewish  nation  would  preserve 
some  kind  of  independence,  however  precarious,  until  the  great 
event  should  occur  which  was  so  wistfully  looked  forward  to, 
namely,  the  Advent  of  the  Messiah.  The  prophecy  does  not 
•promise  a  day  of  cessation  from  all  oppression  or  trouble. 
Nor  is  it  unnatural,  when  the  strict  meaning  of  the  word 
"  oppression  "  is  borne  in  mind,  to  regard  the  passage  itself, 
with  Hengstenberg,  as  affording  an  indication  that  at  the  time 
the  prophecy  was  composed  the  people  were  actually  suffering 
under,  or  had  been  but  lately  redeemed  from,  an  oppression 
similar  in  some  respects  to  that  which  their  forefathers  had 
endured  in  the  land  of  Egypt.  This  language  would  be  more 
likely  to  have  been  used  by  a  prophet  who  lived  in  or  after 
the  days  of  exile  than  by  one  who  lived  at  an  earlier  period. 

The  expression  "  for  now  have  I  seen  with  my  eyes,"  has 
been  explained  as  referring  to  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  described 
as  running  to  and  fro  throughout  the  whole  earth  (iv.  10). 
It  is,  however,  more  naturally  understood  to  be  a  remi- 
niscence of  the  words  of  Jahaveh  in  Exod.  iii.  7,  "  I  have 
seen,  I  have  seen  the  oppression  of  my  people."  The  phrase- 
ology is  in  accordance  with  the  common  language  of  the 
Pentateuch,  which  represents  the  Lord  as  descending  from 
heaven  in  order  himself  to  witness  the  sin  he  had  determined 
to  punish  (comp.  Gen.  xviii.  21),  and  to  behold  the  oppression 
wherewith  his  people  were  troubled  and  oppressed  (Exod.  iii. 
7,  8).  Hengstenberg's  remark  is  true  :  "  in  the  estimation  of 
timid,  despairing  men,  men  of  little  faith,  God  only  sees,  when 
in  his  providence  he  actively  interferes."  The  language  is, 
of  course,  an  accommodation  to  ordinary  methods  of  human 


224  ZECIIARIAH    AND    IIIS    rROPHECIES.  [Ch.  ix.  8. 

thought  and  action.  Hcngstenbcrg  thinks  that  the  word 
**noiv"  "  refers  not  so  much  to  the  time  at  which  the  prophecy 
itself  was  dehvcrcd,  as  to  the  period  of  fulfihncnt  when  the 
Lord  should  encamp  around  his  house."  But  this  latter 
supposition  is  unnecessary.  The  prophet  seems  rather  to 
comfort  his  people  with  the  thought  that  the  Lord  had  beiield 
the  oppression  under  which  they  were  then  suffering,  and  that 
his  gracious  resolve  was  that  that  oppression  should  terminate, 
and  that  similar  troubles  would  not  again  be  experienced  until 
Zion's  promised  king  should  have  indeed  come.  • 

With  respect  to  the  special  fulfilment  of  this  prediction  of 
Zechariah  in  the  days  of  Alexander  the  Great,  the  remarkable 
statements  of  Josephus  must  be  borne  in  mind.  That  his- 
torian states  that  Alexander,  at  the  commencement  of  his 
campaign  against  Phoenicia,  sent  to  the  Jewish  high  priest, 
demanding  aid  from  the  Jews  and  the  payment  to  him  of  the 
tribute  which  used  to  be  paid  to  the  Persian  monarch.  The 
high  priest  declined,  however,  to  break  the  oath  of  fealty 
which  he  had  sworn  to  Darius,  and  accordingly  refused  to 
obey  the  mandates  of  the  Macedonian  monarch.  In  conse- 
quence of  that  refusal,  Alexander  threatened  to  inflict  a  severe 
chastisement  on  Jerusalem,  when  he  should  have  captured  the 
fortress  of  Tyre.  When  Tyre,  therefore,  fell  into  his  hands,  and 
the  Philistine  strongholds  were  reduced,  Alexander  marched 
against  Jerusalem  with  the  design  of  executing  his  threat  of 
vengeance  against  that  city  and  the  Jewish  people.  Josephus 
relates  that  on  this  occasion  the  high  priest  J addua,  encouraged 
by  God  in  a  dream,  caused  the  gates  of  the  city  to  be  crowned 
with  garlands,  and  went  forth  to  meet  the  conqueror,  followed 
by  the  people  all  attired  in  white  robes,  the  priests  at  the 
head  of  the  procession  clad  in  their  linen  garments,  while  the 
high  priest  himself  was  robed  in  his  gorgeous  dress  of  purple 
and  gold,  and  wore  on  his  head  the  mitre  with  the  golden 
plate  on  which  was  inscribed  the  name  of  God.     The   Phce- 


Ch.  ix.  8.]  THE   PREPARATION    OF   THE   LAND.  22$ 

nicians  and  Chaldaeans  in  the  train  of  Alexander  expected  to 
be  permitted  to  share  in  the  rich  plunder  of  the  city.  Alex- 
ander, however,  as  soon  as  he  beheld  the  strange  procession, 
advanced  alone  towards  the  high  priest,  adored  the  name 
of  God,  and  first  saluted  the  pontiff.  When  asked  by  Par- 
menio  how  it  was  that  he,  who  was  worshipped  by  all,  should 
himself  adore  the  high  priest  of  the  Jews,  he  replied,  "  I  did 
not  worship  him,  but  God  with  whose  high-priesthood  he  has 
been  honoured.  For  him  I  saw  in  sleep  in  this  dress  when 
I  was  in  Dium  in  Macedonia.  And  as  I  was  considering 
with  myself  how  I  would  conquer  Asia,  he  exhorted  me 
not  to  delay,  but  to  cross  over  boldly,  for  that  he  himself 
would  lead  my  army,  and  would  give  over  to  me  the  empire 
of  the  Persians.  Therefore,  since  I  have  seen  no  one  else  in 
such  a  dress,  having  now  beheld  him,  and  having  remem- 
bered the  appearance  in  sleep,  and  the  exhortation,  I  consider 
that  having  made  my  expedition  under  Divine  guidance,  I 
will  conquer  Darius,  and  overturn  the  power  of  the  Persians, 
and  succeed  in  all  things  which  I  have  in  my  mind."  Having 
said  this,  Alexander  took  the  priest  by  the  right  hand,  and 
proceeded  to  Jerusalem  and  to  the  temple,  where  he  sacrificed 
to  God  ;  and  where,  after  having  bestowed  rewards  on  the 
priests,  he  was  shown  by  them  the  book  of  the  prophet  Daniel 
and  the  prophecy  there  contained  of  the  overthrow  of  the 
Persian  monarchy  by  the  Grecian  power  {Aiitiq.  Jiid.,  xi.  8, 

§§  4.  5)- 

The  historical  truth  of  this  statement  of  Josephus,  which 
agrees  with  the  Talmudic  traditions,  need  not  here  be  ex- 
amined into.  It  is  partly  supported  by  the  fact  that  the 
high  priest  Jaddua  was  probably,  according  to  Neh.  xii.  1 1,  I2, 
high  priest  when  Alexander  invaded  Judaea.  The  story  is 
neither  so  incredible  as  some  have  endeavoured  to  prove,  nor 
so  certain  as  others  would  wish  to  make  it  appear.  -^     It  is  very 

^  See    Smith's  Biblical  Diet,   article   on  Jaddua,  and  Lord  Arthur  Hervey, 

Q 


226  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  ix.  8. 

probable,  as  Dean  Stanley  has  remarked,  that  Alexander  paid 
homage  to  Jahaveh  as  God  of  the  Jews,  as  he  had  before 
worshipped  the  god  of  the  Tyrians.  But  the  fact  is  certain, 
whatever  was  its  immediate  cause,  that  the  Jewish  temple  was 
protected  by  Alexander,  and  that  the  Jewish  people  received 
remarkable  tokens  of  favour  at  the  hands  of  the  conquerors. 
The  Jews  were  marvellously  preserved  during  the  terrible  con- 
test which  overturned  the  Persian  empire.  Notwithstanding 
the  number  of  armies  that  passed  to  and  fro  through  their  land, 
not  only  during  the  period  of  Alexander's  rule,  but  also  during 
the  stormy  times  of  his  successors,  when  Judaea  was  so  often 
overrun  with  armies,  the  Jews  were  preserved  from  utter  de- 
struction. They  were  not  reduced  to  the  condition  of  slaves, 
as  they  had  been  in  the  days  of  the  Babylonian  and  Persian 
empires,  but  amid  all  the  confusion  necessarily  arising  from 
the  change  of  empire  they  often  preserved  a  position  of  semi- 
independence,  and  sometimes  of  complete  independence. 
Their  temple  was  not  destroyed  when  the  Persian  empire  was 
overthrown,  and  though  for  a  brief  period  in  later  days  Anti- 
ochus  Epiphancs  was  permitted  to  desecrate  the  holy  edifice, 
yet  even  in  that  dark  period  the  temple  was  not  completely 
desolated  or  destroyed  as  it  had  been  by  the  Chaldaeans.  As 
Kliefoth  remarks,  neither  Antiochus  Epiphanes  nor  any  other 
of  the  Grecian  monarchs  were  able  to  reduce  the  Jewish 
people  to  a  state  of  slavery. 

When  all  the  varied  statements  of  the  prophecy  are  borne 
in  mind,  especially  those  relating  to  the  absorption  of  the 
Philistines  into  the  nation  of  Israel,  together  with  those  just 
considered,  Kohler  seems  correct  in  his  view  that  the  prophecy 
does  not  merely  delineate  the  events  connected  with  the  tri- 
umphal progress  of  Alexander,  but  predicts  the  general  events 

On  the  Genealogies  of  our  Lord,  pp.  loi,  107,  etc.  On  the  story  of  Josephus 
in  general  see  Milman's  History  of  the  Jrcos  (41)1  edit.),  vol.  i.  p.  446,  and  the 
authorities  referred  to  by  him,  and  Stanley's  ytww/<  Churchy  vol.  iii.  (2nd  edit.), 
pp.  238-40. 


Ch.  ix.  8.]  THE   PREPARATION   OF   THE   LAND.  22/ 

which  followed  the  Greek  conquest  of  Palestine,  inclusive  of 
the  various  wars  which  occurred  in  the  latter  days  of  the 
Grecian  supremacy  up  to  the  time  when  the  Roman  power 
overshadowed  that  of  Greece. 

Before  passing  on  to  consider  the  great  Messianic  passage 
in  verse  9  and  following,  it  may  be  convenient  here  to  pause 
in  order  to  review  the  other  expositions  of  the  prophecy  which 
have  been  propounded  by  able  scholars  of  the  modern  critical 
school. 

Bleek  views  the  prophecy  of  chap.  ix.  as  a  prediction  complete 
in  itself,  and  not  connected  with  that  in  chap.  x.  He  considers 
it  an  evident  fact  that  the  prophecy  was  composed  in  or  about 
the  latter  part  of  the  reign  of  Uzziah.  It  ought  to  be  observed 
that  although  a  considerable  difference  of  opinion  prevails 
among  the  critics  of  the  modern  school  as  to  the  connexion 
of  this  prophecy  with  the  next  and  following  chapters,  those 
critics  generally  agree  in  considering  that  this  portion  belongs 
to  the  date  assigned  by  Bleek,  or  to  the  time  of  Ahaz.  Their 
arguments  in  favour  of  the  pre-exilian  composition  of  the 
prophecy  mainly  rest  upon  the  assumed  fact  (see  Bleek's 
Emleitung)  that  this  oracle  speaks  of  several  cities  and  king- 
doms as  independent,  which  did  not  possess  any  independence 
at  the  period  of  the  Jewish  return  from  exile. 

Thus  Hadrach  and  Damascus  lost  their  independence  whe 
Tiglath-Pileser,  king  of  Assyria,  overthrew  the  kingdom  of 
Syria  in  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  king  of  Judah. 
Hamath  was  also  subdued  by  the  Assyrians  during  the  reign 
of  Hezekiah.  The  references  to  Tyre  and  Sidon  are  not 
generally  considered  to  afford  any  clear  indication  of  the  early 
date  of  the  prophecy.  On  the  contrary,  the  special  references 
to  Tyre  are,  as  we  have  shown,  decidedly  in  favour  of  its  post- 
exilian  composition.  It  is,  however,  asserted  that  the  manner 
in  which  the  Philistines  are  spoken  of  necessarily  implies  the 
independence  of  that  people,  which  independence  was  lost 


228  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  ix.  i-8. 

long  before  the  restoration  from  the  Babylonish  captivity. 
The  mention  made  of  Greece  in  verse  13,  which  shall  be 
discussed  by  and  by,  and  which  has  been  much  relied  on 
by  those  who  uphold  the  post-exilian  composition  of  the 
prophecy,  is  explained  by  Bleek  and  others  by  a  reference 
to  Joel  iv.  6,  as  arising  from  the  fact  that  many  of  the  Israelite 
captives  of  earlier  days  may  have  been  sold  to  the  Greeks  by 
the  Phoenician  slave-merchants. 

The  force  of  Bleek's  argument  with  regard  to  Hadrach  is 
considerably  weakened  by  the  fact  that  this  scholar's  conjec- 
ture must  now  be  abandoned,  namely,  that  Hadrach  was  the 
name  of  a  king  of  Syria  whose  memory  was  still  fresh  in 
the  prophet's  day,  though  it  has  since  entirely  faded  from  his- 
tory. For  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  hav^e  shown  (see  p.  205) 
that  Hadrach  was  the  name  of  a  district  not  far  from  Da- 
mascus. It  must  also  be  noted  that  long  after  the  period 
when  Damascus  and  Hamath  had  ceased  to  be  independent 
kingdoms,  and  had  become  part  and  parcel  of  the  Assyrian 
empire,  Jeremiah  prophesied  against  those  cities,  and  that  his 
prophecies  were  fulfilled  in  the  destruction  which  befel  them 
when  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon  overran  their  terri- 
tories (Jer.  xlix.  23-27).  If,  tlicrefore,  a  prophet  who  lived  in 
the  days  of  the  Babylonian  supremacy  could  utter  such  pre- 
dictions against  Damascus  and  Hamath,  couched  in  language 
which,  if  it  had  not  been  explained  by  other  history,  might 
incline  us  to  suppose  that  those  kingdoms  were  independent, 
why  should  it  be  thought  so  strange  that  a  prophet  living  in 
the  days  of  the  Persian  supremacy  should  threaten  the  same 
cities  in  general  terms  witli  disasters  which  were  to  fall  upon 
them  when  the  Medo-Persian  empire  should  be  overthrown 
by  the  might  of  Greece  .-'  It  cannot  appear  strange  that  a 
prophet  whose  predictions  had  for  the  most  part  the  object  of 
stirring  up  the  Jewish  people  to  make  use  of  the  liberty  they 
possessed  and  to  return  to  their  own  land,  should  speak  of  the 


Ch.  ix.  1-8.]         THE   PREPARATION   OF   THE   LAND.  229 

disaster  impending  over  the  heathen  inhabitants  of  those  cities 
which  were  comprehended  within  the  limits  originally  assigned 
to  the  people  of  Israel  (see  p.  201).  Damascus  and  Hamath 
could  not  have  been  an  object  of  terror  to  Judah  in  the  days 
when  Jeremiah  uttered  his  denunciations  against  them.  And 
if  the  mention  of  Damascus  and  Hamath  is  not  considered  a 
valid  argument  against  the  genuineness  of  the  special  prophe- 
cies of  Jeremiah,  although  those  cities  could  no  longer  be 
regarded  as  independent  foes  of  Judah,  how  can  that  fact  be 
fairly  made  the  basis  of  an  argument  against  the  genuineness 
of  Zechariah  ?  It  is,  moreover,  highly  probable  that  the 
inhabitants  of  those  historic  cities  and  districts  were  strongly 
opposed  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jewish  exiles  to  their  full 
rights  in  the  land  to  which  they  had  returned,  and  that  they 
assisted  "  the  adversaries  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem  "  in  their 
efforts  to  hinder  and  retard  the  progress  of  the  restored 
Jewish  colony.  And  it  is  very  possible  that  was  the  reason 
why  the  prophet  was  commissioned  to  reveal  the  judgments 
of  God  which  should  ultimately  fall  upon  those  cities. 

The  mention  of  the  Philistines  in  this  prophecy  ought  not 
to  be  regarded  as  presenting  any  serious  difficulty  in  the  way 
of  its  composition  after  the  exile.  Jeremiah  (chap.  xxv.  20  ; 
xlvii.  1-7)  and  Ezekiel  (chap.  xxv.  15-17)  likewise  denounced 
judgments  against  the  Philistines.  That  people  were  not 
backward  to  exhibit  their  determined  hostility  against  the 
Jews  when  the  latter  returned  from  Babylon.  The  inhabitants 
of  Ashdod  were  among  the  enemies  of  the  Jews  who  were 
wroth  when  Nehemiah  began  to  rebuild  the  walls  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  they  joined  in  a  conspiracy  to  go  up  against 
Jerusalem  at  that  time  and  fight  against  it  (Neh.  iv.  7,  8),  not- 
withstanding that  Nehemiah  had  begun  that  work  under  the 
express  sanction  of  the  great  king  of  Persia.  Still  later,  in 
the  Maccabean  period,  the  Philistines  actively  displayed  their 
hostility  against  the  Jewish  people  (i  Mace.  iii.  41),  notwith- 


230  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    rROPHECIES.         [Ch.  ix.  1-8. 

standing  that  their  power  had  been  broken  long  before  by  the 
conquests  of  Alexander.  They  appear  to  have  been  finally 
crushed  by  the  victories  of  Jonathan  (i  Mace.  x.  84,  89). 
Hence  the  mention  o{  the  Philistines  cannot  be  considered 
as  any  proof  of  the  pre-exilian  date  of  this  prophecy.  The 
argument  drawn  from  the  mention  of  a  "king  of  Gaza"  is 
of  more  importance,  but  is  not,  for  the  reasons  already  assigned 
(see  p.  215),  conclusive. 

If  this  prophecy  be  supposed  to  have  been  written  in  the 
reign  of  Uzziah  or  in  the  early  part  of  that  of  Ahaz,  the 
prophecies  against  the  Syrians  and  Philistines  might  indeed 
be  regarded  as  natural.  For  the  memory  of  the  successful 
wars  of  Jeroboam  II.  against  Syria,  and  his  conquest  of 
Damascus  and  Hamath,  were  then  fresh  (2  Kings  xiv.  25,  28) 
in  the  minds  of  the  people.  Still  later,  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz, 
Syria  was  a  formidable  enemy  to  Judah.  Uzziah,  several 
decades  earlier,  carried  on  a  successful  warfare  against  the 
Philistines  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  6,  7).  But  the  prediction  of  the 
conversion  of  the  Philistines  to  the  faith  of  Israel,  and  of  their 
incorporation  with  the  people  of  the  covenant,  with  a  share  in 
all  the  rights  and  privileges  belonging  to  such  a  position,  must 
be  viewed  as  most  extraordinary,  if  assigned  to  such  an  era, 
nor  was  the  prophecy  then  accomplished.  We  cannot  ac- 
cept the  middle  view  propounded  by  Pressel,  who  considers 
that  the  prophecy  speaks  of  Hezekiah's  victories  over  the 
Philistines  (2  Kings  xviii.  8),  and  suggests  that  those  victories 
somewhat  weakened  the  attachment  of  the  Philistines  to  their 
national  idolatry.  Nor  can  we  regard  his  suggestion  as 
felicitous  that  the  "  bastard,"  or  "  ignoble  one,"  of  verse  6 
was  probably  the  Jewish  governor  appointed  by  Hezekiah  over 
the  city  of  Ashdod,  and  that  he  was  so  termed  with  an  "  iron- 
ical allusion  to  the  fact  of  circumcision,  which  was  looked 
upon  as  dishonourable  in  the  eyes  of  the  Philistines."  These 
predictions  of  Zechariah  were  really  accomplished  at  a  later 


Ch.  ix.  i-S.]        THE   PREPARATION   OF   THE   LAND.  23 1 

period,  and  not  even  Bleek,  Maurer,  or  Ewald,  have  ven- 
tured to  point  out  any  definite  fulfilment  at  any  pre-exilian 
period.  Hitzig's  view  is  most  improbable,  namely,  that  the 
campaigns  of  Uzziah  against  the  Philistines,  and  the  cities 
built  by  him  in  the  district  of  Ashdod,  form  "  the  historical 
basis  of  the  prophecy  contained  in  these  verses." 

The  prediction  concerning  the  preservation  of  the  temple 
Pressel  regards  as  accomplished  by  the  preservation  of  the 
city  of  Jerusalem  during  the  campaigns  of  Tiglath-Pilezer 
and  Shalmanezer,  the  latter  of  whom  subdued  Samaria. 
Josephus,  on  the  authority  of  Menander,  mentions  a  partially 
successful  attack  of  Shalmanezer  on  Tyre  {Antiq.  Jiid.,  ix. 
14,  §  2),  when  Elulseus  was  king  of  that  city.  But  Elula^us  is 
probably  to  be  identified  with  Luliah  king  of  Sidon,  of  "Sidon 
the  greater  and  Sidon  the  lesser,"  over  whom  Sennacherib  in 
his  inscription  boasts  that  he  obtained  decisive  victories.  ^  It 
is  somewhat  uncertain  whether  Sennacherib  actually  took 
Tyre;  for  the  language  of  the  inscription  is  consistent  with 
the  idea  that  Menander  may  have  been  quite  correct  in  stating 
that  the  Tyrians  were  not  utterly  subdued.  The  conquests  of 
Sennacherib  cannot,  however,  be  regarded  as  the  fulfilment  of 
this  prophecy ;  although  that  conqueror  did  indeed  overrun 
Phoenicia  and  made  the  kings  of  the  Philistines  his  vassals. 
Ashkelon  was  permitted  to  remain  a  vassal  kingdom,  though 
it  received  at  the  hands  of  Sennacherib  another  king,  while 
the  kings  of  Ashdod  and  Gaza  were  treated  with  peculiar 
favour  by  the  Assyrian  monarch.  So  far  were  the  prophecies 
here  recorded  from  being  fulfilled  on  that  occasion. 

Perhaps  even  more  unsatisfactory  is  the  view  defended  by 
Maurer,  namely,  that  the  prophet  alludes  to  the  immunity 
experienced  by  Jerusalem  during  the  irruption  of  Rezin  king 
of  Syria,  and  Pekah  king  of  Israel,  into  the  territories  of  Judah 

*  See  the  translation  of  this  inscription  by  H.  F.  Talbot,  F.R.S.,  in  Records  of 
the  Past,  vol.  i.  p.  37,  ff. 


232  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  ix.  i-8. 

(2  Kings  xvi.  5),  as  well  as  during  the  wars  with  the  Philis- 
tines which  occurred  during  that  period  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  18). 
The  denunciations  against  Tyre  might  indeed  be  viewed  as 
naturally  arising  out  of  the  sale  of  the  Israelite  captives  at 
that  period  by  the  Phoenician  merchants  into  foreign  lands, 
alluded  to  by  the  prophet  Joel  {iii.  4-6),  though  the  predic- 
tions as  to  Tyre's  downfall  can  scarcely  be  considered  as 
accomplished  either  by  the  victories  of  Sennacherib  or  by  the 
later  successes  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  But  if  the  prophecy  be 
considered  to  have  been  composed  before  the  exile,  at  the 
date  assigned  by  Maurer,  it  would  be  indeed  strange  and  un- 
accountable that  no  notice  whatever  is  taken  by  the  prophet 
of  the  far  more  important  enemies  of  Judah  at  that  period, 
to  wit,  the  Ammonites  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  8,  xxvii.  5),  the  Edom- 
ites  (Amos  i.  11-15),  the  Moabites  (Amos  ii.  1-3),  and  even 
the  Arabians  and  others  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  7). 

Thus  on  a  review  on  the  one  hand  of  the  objections  adduced 
against  the  post-exilian  date  of  the  prophecy  (so  far  as  yet 
considered),  and  of  the  attempts  made  to  explain  the  prophecy 
as  really  belonging  to  the  time  previous  to  the  exile,  it  appears 
more  probable  that  the  prophecy  was  a  prediction  of  the 
events  connected  with  the  overthrow  by  the  Greek  power  of 
the  Persian  supremacy  in  Palestine  and  the  neighbouring 
districts. 

As  when  at  an  earlier  era  the  Lord  saw  the  oppression  of 
Israel  in  Egypt  and  sent  Moses  into  that  country  to  deliver 
his  people  out  of  "  the  furnace  of  iron,"  so  the  prophet,  who 
acted  as  an  ambassador  from  the  Most  High,  after  having 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  Jahaveh  himself  beheld  the 
affliction  of  his  people  in  the  land  to  which  he  had  graciously 
restored  them,  bursts  forth  into  an  exclamation  of  joy,  and 
bids  the  people  of  the  Lord  rejoice  because  of  the  approach- 
ing advent  of  their  long-expected  king:  "Rejoice  greatly, 
daughter  of  Zion,  shout,  daughter  of  Jerusalem,  Behold  th}- 


Ch.  ix.  9-IO.]  THE   COMING   OF   THE   KING.  233 

king  shall  come  to  thee,  Righteous  and  Saved  is  he,  afflicted 
and  riding  upon  an  ass,  and  upon  a  colt,  a  foal  of  she-asses." 
Philistia  might  well  tremble  when  the  news  of  Tyre's  downfall 
should  be  spread  abroad  in  her  cities,  because  the  downfall  of 
that  great  city  was  the  sure  precursor  of  the  fall  of  her  own 
cities,  and  of  the  ruin  of  her  national  pride.  On  the  other 
hand  Zion  ought  to  rejoice  with  trembling,  for  the  noise  of 
that  mighty  overthrow  was  one  of  the  loud  signals  given  by 
Providence  to  the  world  at  large,  and  to  the  people  of  the 
covenant  in  particular,  of  the  near  approach  of  him  who  was 
first  to  be  king  of  Israel  and  afterwards  king  of  the  world. 

In  discussing  the  ninth  and  tenth  verses  of  this  chapter  it 
is  satisfactory  that  we  have  to  deal  with  a  passage  now  almost 
universally  regarded  by  modern  critics  as  Messianic.  There 
is  no  doubt  much  real  divergence  of  opinion  underneath  this 
apparent  agreement.  But  the  agreement  of  modern  critics  is 
satisfactory  as  far  as  it  goes.  Maurer,  Rosenmiiller,  Hitzig, 
and  Ewald  are  as  decided  in  their  views  on  this  point  as 
Hengstenberg,  Kliefoth,  Kohler,  and  Keil.  All  the  attempts 
which  have  been  made  to  apply  this  prophecy  to  Zerubbabel, 
or  Nehemiah,  have  broken  down  before  the  clear  and  definite 
expression  "  thy  king."  For  neither  Zerubbabel  nor  Nehemiah 
ever  possessed  the  royal  dignity.  That  Judas  Maccabeus  was 
the  hero  referred  to  is  an  opinion  which  for  the  same  reason 
has  found  no  defenders  in  modern  times.  The  view  of  For- 
berg  that  the  entrance  of  Uzziah  into  Jerusalem  after  his 
victories  over  the  Philistines  is  depicted  is  a  most  desperate 
attempt  to  get  rid  of  the  true  meaning  of  the  passage,  and  has 
been  well  declared  by  Hitzig  to  be  untenable.  It  is  therefore 
all  the  more  incomprehensible  that  an  evangelical  scholar  like 
Pressel,  while  admitting  that  the  Messiah  is  mainly  the  person 
in  view,  should  yet  maintain  that  the  entry  of  Hezekiah  into 
Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  his  coronation  is  the  event  primarily 
referred  to.     No  such  entry  is  recorded,  and  it  is  very  unlikely 


234  ZECIIARIAH   AND    IIIS    PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  ix.  9-10. 

that  Hezekiali  would  have  preferred  to  use  an  ass  on  such  an 
occasion.  The  whole  tone  of  the  passage  is  against  such  an 
interpretation,  especially  the  statements  made  in  verse  10  in 
reference  to  the  vast  extent  of  the  kingdom  to  be  ruled  over  by 
the  king  of  Zion. 

The  coming  deliverer  is  described  as  "  righteous,"  or  "just," 
a  title  well  befitting  him  "  who  did  no  sin,  neither  was  guile 
found  in  his  mouth"  (1  Pet.  ii.  22).  The  word  which  follows 
is  rendered  in  our  Authorised  Version  "  having  salvation,"  on 
the  authority  of  the  ancient  versions,  such  as  the  LXX.,  Targ., 
Syr.,  and  Vulg.,  who  render  it  "  saviour."  But  it  is  correctly 
translated  by  Calvin  and  the  modern  critics  by  "  saved." 
The  expression  in  the  prophet's  own  day  would  recall  to  the 
remembrance  of  his  contemporaries  the  language  of  the  second 
Psalm,  where  the  Messiah  is  represented  as  saved  and  delivered 
in  spite  of  all  the  combinations  made  against  him,  and  destined 
to  be  one  day  securely  seated  upon  his  royal  throne.  If  the 
king  of  Israel  was  "saved,"  his  people  must  be  "saved"  like- 
wise. His  deliverance  or  salvation  was  a  sure  sign  of  the 
deliverance  of  his  people,  which  was  to  be  effected  by  his 
means.  The  Christian  commentator  cannot  but  think  (as  he 
ponders  over  such  expressions  in  the  light  of  Christ's  history) 
that  they  contain  a  prediction  of  the  deliverance  granted  to 
the  Lord's  Christ  after  his  days  of  shame  and  suffering.  He 
trusted  in  Jahaveli  that  he  would  deliver  him  (Ps.  xxii.  8),  and 
though  he  was  not  delivered  from  death  on  the  cross,  he  was 
delivered  in  very  deed  from  the  hand  of  the  great  destroyer. 
God  raised  him  from  the  dead,  "having  loosed  the  pains  of 
death  because  it  was  not  possible  that  he  should  be  holden  of 
it"  (Acts  ii.  23,  24).  "Saved"  by  the  almighty  power  of  the 
Father  (Eph.  i.  19-23),  and  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God 
with  power  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead  (Rom.  i.  4), 
having  previously  become  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death 
of  the  cross  (Phil.  ii.  8),  he  was  made  perfect  as  a  Redeemer 


Ch.  ix.  9.]  THE   COMING    OF   THE   KING.  235 

and  Mediator,  and  became  the  author  of  eternal  salvation  unto 
all  them  that  obey  him  (Heb.  v.  9). 

It  was  strange,  however,  that  he  to  whom  the  prophets 
pointed  as  "the  Hope  of  Israel"  should  be  further  character- 
ised as  "afflicted."  This  is  the  most  natural  signification  of 
the  word,  if  explained  according  to  its  grammatical  form, 
and  in  accordance  with  the  usage  in  all  other  places  (see  crit. 
comm.).  It  is  the  meaning  given  to  the  term  by  the  Vulgate, 
and  defended  by  Ibn  Ezra,  Calvin,  and  among  the  modern 
scholars  by  Hengstenberg,  Tholuck,  Kliefoth,  and  Kohler. 
The  extraordinary  fact  that  a  king,  who  was  to  be  rendered 
remarkable  by  some  deliverance  vouchsafed  to  him,  was  also 
described  as  "  afflicted  "  or  "  poor,"  naturally  led  the  Greek 
translators  (LXX.),  the  Targumist,  the  majority  of  Jewish 
commentators,  and  many  critics  of  modern  days  (as  Maurer, 
Hitzig,  and  Ewald),  to  adopt  the  translation  "  lowly "  or 
"  meek,"  which  translation  is  that  given  by  the  Evangelists  ; 
though,  as  the  Evangelists  simply  quoted  the  text  from  the 
LXX.,  little  stress  can  be  fairly  laid  upon  this  circumstance. 
Those  who  feel  themselves  constrained  to  recognise  in  the 
great  prophecy  of  the  afflicted  "  servant  of  the  Lord  "  in  Isaiah 
(lii.  13-liii.)  a  vivid  description  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth,  cannot  regard  it  as  strange  that 
Zechariah  should  have  been  led  to  describe  the  Messiah  as 
"afflicted,"  and  the  Sufferer  as  the  King.  It  is  likely  that 
neither  the  prophet  nor  his  hearers  had  any  conception  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  prophecy  would  be  accomplished,  and 
that  they  understood  the  expression  either  as  denoting  "meek" 
and  "  lowly,"  which  meaning  the  word  undoubtedly  can  bear, 
or  "  afflicted,"  as  pointing  out  the  various  trials  which  should 
precede  the  Messiah's  final  victory.  The  prediction  of 
Caiaphas  (John  xii.  49-52)  is  not  the  only  instance  in  which 
words  uttered  under  some  special  inspiration  had  a  deeper 
signification  than  the  speaker  originally  designed. 


236  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  ix.  9. 

The  animal  here  mentioned  as  that  on  which  the  Messiah  was 
to  ride  was  an  ass,  and  a  colt  the  foal  of  an  ass.  The  phrase 
does  not  signify  that  two  distinct  animals  should  be  used  by 
the  Messiah ;  the  second  expression  is  simply  equivalent  in 
meaning  to  the  word  in  the  first  member  of  the  verse,  and  indi- 
cates more  precisely  the  sense  which  it  bore.  The  ass  to  be 
ridden  by  the  Messiah  was  to  be  a  younganimal  still  accustomed 
to  keep  near  the  she-asses  in  the  pasturage  (comp.  Matt.  xxi.  2). 

Riding  on  an  ass  has  been  considered  by  many  to  be 
mentioned  as  a  proof  of  the  lowliness  and  poverty  of  the 
coming  Messiah.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  maintained 
that  according  to  Eastern  usage  the  riding  on  an  ass  is  no 
mark  whatever  of  poverty  or  humility,  for  the  ass  was  often 
ridden  by  personages  of  high  rank  (comp.  Judg.  v.  9,  10,  x.  4, 
xii.  14  ;  2  Sam.  xvii.  23,  xix.  27,  or  verse  26  in  the  luiglish 
Bible).^  Hengstenberg  is  of  opinion  that  the  practice  of  nobles 
and  kings  riding  on  asses  prevailed  only  in  early  times,  before 
the  use  of  the  horse  became  common  in  Israel,  and  that  when 
the  kingly  government  was  introduced  mules  were  first  used, 
and  at  a  later  period  horses  only.  He  maintains  that  after 
the  time  of  Solomon  no  king  or  great  personage  is  spoken  of 
as  riding  upon  an  ass.  This  latter  fact  may  be  only  accidental, 
although  the  prophet  Jeremiah  speaks  of  kings  sitting  in 
chariots  and  riding  upon  horses  as  something  peculiarly  be- 
fitting their  royal  dignity,  at  least  on  state  occasions  (Jei'.  xvii. 
25).  But  even  that  would  be  insufficient  to  prove  that  the  fact 
of  a  king  riding  upon  an  ass  was  in  itself  a  marked  sign  of 
lowliness  or  humility.  The  riding  upon  an  ass  is  mentioned 
because  that  animal  was  in  days  of  peace  used   for  common 

'  The  use  of  the  horse  was  originally  foibidden  in  the  l.iw  (Deut.  xvii.  16),  inas- 
much as  to  obtain  a  supply  of  horses  communication  must  liave  been  kept  up  with 
Egypt,  which  was  contrary  to  the  Divine  intention  (Deut.  .xxviii.  68 ;  Exod.  xiii.  17; 
Deut.  xiv.  3),  and  intercourse  with  Egypt  brought  ruin  upon  the  people  in  later 
days  (Jer.  ii.  36).  See  Herxheimcr  on  Deut.  xvii.  16  [Dcr  Pciitatcuc/iy  3te  Aufl., 
Leipzig,  1865). 


Ch.  ix.  9.]  THE   COMING   OF   THE   KING.  237 

and  ordinary  purposes,  though  it  was  not  used  in  later  times 
for  purposes  of  state  or  for  the  requirements  of  war  (comp. 
chap.  X.  5).  It  cannot,  however,  be  proved  that  the  riding  on 
an  ass  clearly  symbolized  peace,  any  more  than  that  it 
symbolized  humiliation.  It  indicated,  however,  an  absence  of 
pomp  and  worldly  display. 

The  ass  to  be  ridden  is  expressly  mentioned  as  one  on 
which  man  had  not  yet  sat,  which  by  reason  of  its  tender  age 
was  permitted  to  remain  near  its  mother  (on  the  plural,  see  crit. 
comm.).  In  connection  with  this  point  Kohler  calls  attention 
to  the  direction  of  the  Mosaic  law,  that  all  animals  devoted 
to  the  service  of  the  Lord  were  to  be  animals  which  had  not 
previously  been  used  in  the  service  of  man  (Num.  xix.  2  ; 
Deut.  xxi.  3  ;  i  Sam.  vi.  7  ;  Mark  xi.  2  ;  Luke  xix.  30).  The 
riding  of  the  Messiah  upon  such  an  animal  indicates,  according 
to  his  view,  that  the  Messiah  was  employed  peculiarly  in  the 
service  of  Jahaveh,  was  one  who  came  to  fulfil  the  promises  of 
peace  made  by  Jahaveh  to  his  covenant  people.  The  animal 
on  which  the  Messiah  was  to  ride,  was  by  its  very  unostenta- 
tious character  to  bring  prominently  into  view  that  feature  of 
"the  Servant  of  Jahaveh,"  so  beautifully  described  by  Isaiah  : 
"  He  shall  not  cry,  nor  lift  up,  nor  cause  his  voice  to  be  heard 
in  the  streets."  That  feature  so  remarkably  characterised  the 
whole  work  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  that  the  evangelist  called 
the  special  attention  of  his  readers  thereto,  as  a  striking  fulfil- 
ment of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (Matt.  xii.  15-20). 

Although,  therefore,  the  riding  on  the  ass  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  necessarily  a  mark  of  humiliation  or  lowliness,  yet 
there  seems  to  be  a  comparison  drawn  in  the  passage,  pecu- 
liarly suited  to  the  age  at  which  the  prophecy  was  composed, 
between  the  mode  in  which  the  long  expected  king  of  Israel 
was  to  come  to  his  people,  and  the  pomp  and  splendour  of  the 
approaches  of  the  Persian  monarchs.  The  poor  Jewish  exiles 
who  returned  to  their  land  were  dejected   and   cast  down  as 


238  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  ix.  9. 

they  thought  of  tlic  condition  in  which  they  still  found  them- 
selves as  servants  to  the  proud  kings  of  Persia,  the  yoke  of 
whose  bondage  still  galled  their  necks  (Neh.  ix.  t,6,  37).  The 
words  of  Zcchariah  were  well  fitted  to  arouse  their  flagging 
energies,  and  to  lift  them  out  of  their  despair.  For  the  pro- 
phet predicted  that  the  w^holc  land  once  promised  to  Abraham, 
from  farthest  north  to  south,  was  destined  after  some  days  of 
trial  to  belong  to  their  God,  and  therefore  to  his  people  ;  and 
the  prophet  was  further  commissioned  to  announce  the  ad- 
vent of  the  promised  Messiah,  which  was  to  occur  in  a  manner 
widely  different  indeed  from  the  progresses  of  those  mighty 
monarchs,  of  whom  they  had  seen  and  heard  so  much ;  and 
that  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  was  to  bring  about  those 
blessed  results  to  the  people  of  the  covenant  which  are  after- 
wards more  fully  described. 

It  does  not  surprise  us  that  the  Jewish  commentators  of 
early  days,  while  generally  agreeing  among  themselves  that 
this  prophecy  was  Messianic,  should  have  found  peculiar  diffi- 
culties in  the  description  given  of  the  Messiah  himself.  Their 
difficulties  arose  from  the  views  they  held  of  the  Messiah  as  a 
great  and  mighty  conqueror.  They  could  not  contemplate  the 
very  common-place  and  ordinary  way  in  which  the  king  of 
Israel  is  here  described  as  approaching  his  royal  city.  Ihey, 
therefore,  sought  to  reconcile  this  description  with  other  pro- 
phecies either  by  exalting  the  dignity  of  the  animal  on  which 
the  Messiah  was  to  ride,  or,  in  later  days,  by  devising  the  ex- 
pedient of  supposing  that  two  Messiahs  were  spoken  of  in  the 
prophets — the  Messiah  ben  David,  or  the  great  and  victorious 
Messiah,  and  the  Messiah  ben  Joseph,  or  the  Messiah  who  was 
to  suffer,  and  ultimately  to  be  slain,  on  behalf  of  his  people. 

Lightfoot  relates  the  raillery  of  King  Sapor,  a  Persian 
monarch  of  later  days  (B.C.  240),  who  in  his  pride  thus  ad- 
dressed the  Jewish  Rabbi  Samuel:  "Ye  say  that  your  Messiah 
will  come  upon  an  ass.     I  will  send  him  a  noble  horse."     To 


Ch.  ix.  9.]  THE   COMING   OF   THE   KING.  239 

which  speech  the  Rabbi  with  equal  pride  rejoined:  "You 
have  not  a  horse  of  an  hundred  colours,  like  his  ass."  On  this 
rejoinder  Lightfoot  makes  the  pithy  remark,  "  in  the  deepest 
humility  of  the  Messiah  they  dream  of  pride  even  in  his 
ass"  {Horcs  Heb.  Matt.  xxi.  5.  Comp.  Wunsche,  Die  Leiden 
des  Messias,  p.  60). 

It  is  not  necessary  to  do  more  than  refer  to  the  striking 
fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  in  the  lowly  but  triumphant  entry 
of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem,  sitting  on  the  ass's  colt.  He  entered 
Jerusalem  amid  the  enthusiastic  greetings  on  the  one  hand  of 
the  Galilean  pilgrims  who  had  gone  forth  from  that  city  to 
meet  him  as  he  was  nearing  its  walls,  and  on  the  other  amid 
the  rapt  enthusiasm  of  his  own  disciples,  coupled  with  that  of 
other  pilgrims  bound  to  the  Holy  City,  who  had  at  Bethany 
become  acquainted  with  the  miracle  of  the  raising  of  Lazarus 
from  the  dead.  That  entry,  so  well  described  by  Canon 
Farrar  (in  his  Life  of  Christ)  was  a  marvellous  exhibition  of 
the  fulfilment  of  prophecy.  Yet  the  view  of  Vitringa  and 
Hengstenberg  seems  to  be  correct,  that,  though  the  prophecy 
of  Zechariah  thus  received  a  literal  accomplishment,  that 
triumphal  procession  was  not,  in  the  main,  the  fact  which  the 
prophecy  was  designed  to  depict.  The  prophecy  would  have 
been  as  truly  and  really  fulfilled  if  the  triumphal  procession 
of  Palm  Sunday  had  never  taken  place.  That  single  incident 
in  the  life  of  our  Lord  is  not  the  point  which  the  prophet  had 
in  view.  It  was  rather  the  whole  of  the  Saviour's  life,  the 
entire  series  of  events  connected  with  Christ's  first  advent, 
which  was  presented  in  one  striking  picture.  The  actual  en- 
trance of  Christ  into  Jerusalem  in  the  manner  described  in  the 
Old  Testament  prophet  was  an  express  declaration  that  this 
passage  was  indeed  Messianic  in  the  fullest  sense,  and  was  ful- 
filled in  his  person  and  work.  It  was  "  a  symbolical  action,  the 
object  and  design  of  which  was  to  assert  his  royal  dignity,  and 
to  set  forth  in  a  living  picture  the  true  nature  of  his  person  and 


240  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS    rROniECIES.       [Ch.  ix.  9-10. 

kingdom  in  opposition  to  the  false  notions  of  both  friends  and 
foes"  (Hengstenberg).  The  act  of  our  blessed  Lord,  there- 
fore, has  been  regarded  by  some  as  an  act  of  real  irony. 
The  shouts  of  the  multitude  testified  to  the  fact  that  on  that 
occasion  the  Jewish  people  recognised  the  lowly  rider  as  "  the 
King  of  Israel."  Their  Messianic  hopes  no  doubt  soon  faded 
away,  when  the  prophet  of  Nazareth  did  not  act  as  they  in  their 
ignorance  supposed  the  Messiah  should  have  done.  No  one 
except  our  Lord  appears  on  that  occasion  to  have  thought  of, 
the  close  connection  between  the  acts  performed  before  the 
eyes  of  the  people  and  the  predictions  of  Zechariah.  "  These 
things  understood  not  his  disciples  at  the  first,  but  when  Jesus 
was  glorified,  then  remembered  they  that  those  things  were 
written  of  him,  and  they  had  done  those  things  unto  him  " 
(John  xii.  16). 

The  great  result  of  the  advent  of  the  Messiah  is  stated  in 
the  verse  following  :  "  And  I  cut  off  the  chariot  from  Ephraim 
and  the  horse  from  Jerusalem,  and  the  battle-bow  shall  be  cut 
off,  and  he  will  speak  peace  to  the  nations,  and  his  rule  shall  be 
from  sea  to  sea,  and  from  the  river  to  the  ends  of  the  earth." 

The  reign  of  the  Messiah  was  to  result  in  a  universal  spread 
of  peace.  But  that  result  was  to  be  brought  about  in  a  very 
singular  manner.  The  Lord  would  first  destroy  among  his 
own  people  the  chariots,  the  horses,  and  the  w^eapons  used  in 
war.  Instead  of  the  Messiah  arming  the  people  whom  he  was 
to  deliver  with  those  weapons  of  war  needful  for  a  contest  with 
their  foes,  this  second  Joshua,  who  should  ultimately  put  his 
people  in  full  possession  of  their  land,  and  give  them  rest  for 
ever,  was  not  to  call  upon  an  "armed"  people  "prepared  for 
war"  to  pass  on  before  him  "unto  battle"  against  the  enemy 
(comp.  Josh.  iv.  12,  13).  Not  thus  was  the  Messiah  to  procure 
rest  for  his  people.  On  the  contrary,  he  would  first  break  the 
bow  and  cut  in  sunder  the  spear  of  Ephraim  and  Jerusalem, 
burn  their  chariots  and  cut  off  the  horses  (Ps.  xlvi.  9)   of  his 


Ch.  ix.  9,  la]  THE   COMING   OF   THE   KING.  24I 

own  people,  and  then  speak  peace  to  the  nations  against  whom 
he  might  most  justly  have  carried  on  an  exterminating  war. 

Hengstenberg  and  KHefoth,  following  here  the  interpreta- 
tion of  Theodoret  and  Eusebius,  have  considered  Zechariah 
ro  announce  that  an  end  would  be  put  to  the  independence  of 
the  Jewish  people.  But  it  is  unnatural  and  harsh  to  suppose, 
as  Hengstenberg  does,  following  those  early  interpreters, 
that  the  passage  contains  a  prophecy  of  the  final  destruction 
of  Jewish  independence  by  the  Roman  power.  The  expres- 
sion "  I  will  cut  off"  must  be  regarded  as  an  imitation  of 
Mic.  V.  9- 1 3,  where  it  occurs  no  less  than  five  times  in 
succession.  It  must  certainly  mean  a  forcible  taking  away 
of  all  the  means  of  warfare.  It  cannot  simply  indicate  that 
all  such  weapons  should  be  laid  aside  as  no  longer  neces- 
sary, which  is  the  idea  presented  in  Mic.  iv.  3  ;  Isa.  ii.  4. 
The  expression  is  used  by  the  prophet  himself  in  verse  9,  of 
the  cutting  off  of  the  pride  of  the  Philistines  ;  and  the  cutting 
off  of  the  chariots,  horses,  and  bows  of  battle,  from  Ephraim 
and  Jerusalem  must  be  regarded  as  something  similar  in  its 
character.  But  Kliefoth  is  right  in  supposing  that  the  prophet 
predicts  something  which  would  be  a  blessing,  even  though 
brought  about  by  compulsion,  and  not  an  event  such  as  that 
of  the  destruction  of  Jewish  independence  by  the  might  of 
Rome,  which  was  nothing  else  than  the  heaviest  judgment 
that  ever  befel  the  Jewish  nation.  The  advent  of  the  Messiah, 
unaccompanied  though  it  should  be  by  eajthly  pomp  and  dis- 
play, was  to  be  a  blessing  to  Israel,  for  whose  sake  the  Messiah 
primarily  came,  though  the  kingdom  which  he  should  set  up 
should  not  be  of  this  world  (John  xviii.  36).  The  removal  from 
their  midst  of  the  weapons  of  war  by  him  who  was  their  king, 
was  to  be  the  very  means  of  extending  the  power  and  influence 
of  the  people  of  Israel.  The  loss  of  their  political  independence 
(an  event  not,  however,  directly  predicted,  as  Kliefoth  imagines,^ 

^  Kliefoth's  own  idea  is  rather  fanciful,  namely,  that  the  passage  teaches  that  the 

R 


242  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS    PROrHECIES.       [Ch.  ix.  9,  10. 

but  one  which  would  naturally  follow  from  the  people  being 
rendered  incapable  of  a  warlike  struggle),  was  to  be  im- 
mediately succeeded  by  an  era  of  peace.  The  loss  of  their 
independence  at  the  time  of  our  Lord's  advent  would  have 
been  a  gain  to  the  Jewish  people,  had  they  only  known  the 
day  of  their  visitation  (Luke  xix.  44).  The  Jews  would  in  that 
case  for  a  time  have  remained  subject  to  the  Roman  empire, 
but  they  would  soon  have  become  the  moral  and  spiritual  con- 
querors of  that  empire.  The  fearful  ruin  which  was  the  result 
of  their  struggle  for  political  independence  would  have  been 
avoided.  But  the  continued  unbelief  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
even  after  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  when  pardon  and 
forgiveness  was  so  freely  offered  to  them,  notwithstanding  their 
previous  rejection  of  Christ  and  his  claims,  turned  what  would 
have  been  a  blessing  into  a  curse.  They  would  not  have  their 
King  to  reign  over  them,  they  rejected  him  who  was  "meek 
and  lowly  in  heart  "  as  unworthy  of  their  acceptance,  they  re- 
fused to  take  his  yoke  upon  them,  and  to  learn  of  him  (Matt, 
xi.  28-30).  Hence  the  advent  of  Messiah,  which  was  designed 
to  have  been  a  national  blessing,  became  a  national  curse. 
The  blessing  was  indeed  not  altogether  lost ;  it  was  obtained 
by  the  faithful  remnant,  the  "  election,"  but  "  the  rest  "  were 
blinded  (Rom.  xi.  7).  False  notions  respecting  the  Messiah 
prevented  them  from  accepting  the  true  Messiah,  and  their 
desire  for  national  freedom,  pomp  and  power,  hindered  their 
obtaining  the  spiritual  liberty,  glory  and  conquest  which  would 
otherwise  more  largely  have  fallen  to  them  as  a  nation. 

The  mention  made  of  Ephraim  and  Jerusalem  in  this  place 
is  regarded  by  many  scholars  as  affording  distinct  evidence 
that  the  writer  of  the  prophec}'  lived  at  some  period  before 
the  Babylonish  captivity,  when  the  kingdoms  of  Israel  on  the 

Messiah  instead  of  ruling  over  Israel  after  the  "  flesh  "  sliall  rule  over  an  Israel  after 
the  "spirit,"  and  that  the  latter  is  the  true  Israel  here  referred  to,  which  would 
be  a  spiritual  people  of  God  living  in  all  quarters  of  the  world. 


Ch.  ix.  10.]  THE   COMING   OF   THE   KING.  243 

one  hand,  and  of  Judah  on  the  other,  were  hidependent 
nations,  if  not  actually  at  war  with  one  another.  It  has, 
indeed,  been  remarked  that  these  two  kingdoms  are  not  only 
prophesied  of  as  destined  to  be  ruled  over  by  their  coming 
king,  but  actually  alluded  to  in  the  next  verse  as  forming  to- 
gether one  body.  But  this  exposition  of  verse  11  is  by  no 
means  so  certain  as  to  justify  our  founding  upon  it  any 
definite  argument.^ 

A  more  satisfactory  answer  can  be  afforded.  In  the  earlier 
portion  of  Zechariah,  admittedly  written  after  the  exile,  dis- 
tinct mention  is  made  of  both  the  house  of  Judah  and  the 
house  of  Israel  as  alike  sharers  of  the  Divine  curse,  and  as 
alike  destined  to  be  partakers  of  a  blessing  in  Messianic  times 
(chap.  viii.  13).  A  passage  strikingly  parallel  to  this  occurs  in 
chap.  X.  6.  It  need  not  consequently  occasion  surprise  if  men- 
tion is  made  in  other  places  of  those  two  portions  of  the  one 
covenant  people.  Distinct  and  separate  mention  is  made  of 
both  in  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel  which  belong  to  the  period 
of  the  exile  (Ezek.  xxxvii.  15-28).  The  twelve  tribes  were 
generally  thought  of  as  forming  one  great  whole,  even  in  N.  T. 
Scripture.  Thus  our  Lord  promised  to  his  twelve  apostles 
that  "in  the  regeneration"  they  should  sit  on  twelve  thrones 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  (Matt.  xix.  28  ;  Luke 
xxii.  30).  St.  Paul  speaks  in  his  oration  before  Agrippa  of 
the  twelve  tribes  as  instantly  serving  God  day  and  night  (Acts 
xxvi.  7).  St.  James  addresses  his  epistle  to  the  twelve  tribes 
which  were  in  the  dispersion  (James  i.  i) ;  and  St.  John  in  the  Re- 
velation mentions  the  names  of  the  twelve  tribes  in  the  vision 
of  the  sealed  multitude  (Rev.  vii.),  while  in  his  description  of 
the  holy  city  he  notes  that  the  names  of  the  twelve  tribes  of 

^  See  our  remarks  on  p.  250,  and  crit.  comm.  Kohler's  idea  is  that  the  pro- 
noun of  the  second  pers.  sing.  fem.  ( riS  )  and  the  fern,  suiifixes  (in  '^H''"!?  and  '^.''1"'P^ ) 
are  used  because  the  collective  body  of  the  people  is  referred  to.  The  use  of  the 
feminine  might,  however, be  explained  as  referring  to  the  expressions,  "^daughter  of 
Zion"  and  "  daughter  of  Jerusalem,"  which  occur  in  verse  9. 


244  ZECHARIAII   AND    IIIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  ix.  lo. 

the  children  of  Israel  were  inscribed  on  its  several  gates 
Rev.  xxi.  12).  Nor  were  the  exiles  who  returned  from  captivity- 
forgetful  of  their  brethren  of  the  ten  tribes,  to  whom  full  liberty 
to  return  to  their  land  had  also  been  accorded  by  the  decree 
of  Cyrus,  had  they  chosen  to  avail  themselves  of  that  liberty. 
At  the  dedication  of  the  second  temple,  in  which  Haggai  and 
Zechariah  took  part,  a  sin-offering  was  offered,  "  for  all  Israel 
twelve  he-goats  according  to  the  number  of  the  tribes  of 
Israel"  (Ezra  vi.  17);  and  when  at  a  later  period  Ezra  went 
up  to  Jerusalem  with  a  new  band  of  exiles  returning  out 
of  the  land  of  exile,  "burnt  offerings"  were  offered  "unto 
the  God  of  Israel,  twelve  bullocks  for  all  Israel,  ninety- 
seven  rams,  seventy-seven  lambs,  and  twelve  he-goats  for 
a  sin-offering"  (Ezra  viii.  35).  It  is  more  than  probable 
that  not  a  few  members  of  the  ten  tribes  returned  along  with 
their  brethren  of  the  tribes  of  Judah  and  Benjamin  with 
Zerubbabel,  or  went  up  later  with  Ezra,  although  the  majority 
of  the  Israelites  belonging  to  the  two  tribes,  as  well  as  the 
members  of  the  ten,  were  indisposed  at  that  time  to  quit  the 
abodes  to  which  they  had  been  habituated  from  their  infancy 
for  new  dwellings  in  the  land  of  their  forefathers.  (See  our 
remarks  on  pp.  279-283.)  In  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah '  the  name  of  Israel  is  constantly  applied  to  the  whole 
body  of  the  returned  exiles,  who  are  likewise  styled  by  the 
name  of  Jews.  It  does  not,  however,  follow  that  they  all 
belonged  to  the  two  tribes  of  Judah  and  Benjamin  or  to  the 
tribe  of  Levi.  The  genealogical  registers  of  the  tribes  com- 
posing the  northern  kingdoms  no  doubt  had  perished,  though 
possibly  a  few  families  retained  by  tradition  the  memory  of 
their  descent  from  a  particular  tribe.  Only  a  small  portion 
of  the  genealogical  registers,  even  of  the  two  tribes,  seems  to 
have  been  saved.    The  registers  of  the  priestly  families  and  of 

'  Sec,  for  instance,  Ezra  ii.  2,  70,  iii.  I,  iv.  3,  vi.  16,  21,  vii.  2S,  viii.  29  ;  Nch. 
i.  6,  vii.  7,  viii.  17,  ix.  I,  2. 


Ch.  ix.  10.]  THE   COMING   OF   THE   KING.  245 

the  royal  family  of  David  had  naturally  been  preserved  with 
greater  care  than  the  others,  but  even  in  these  cases  the 
genealogies  were  by  no  means  perfect  (Neh.  vii.  64,  65).  Nor 
must  it  be  forgotten  that  the  Gentile  colonists  who  had  been 
planted  in  the  land  of  Samaria  had  become  mixed  with  the 
poor  Israelites  who  had  either  been  left  in  the  land,  or  who 
had  returned  to  their  land  from  the  surrounding  countries 
whither  they  had  fled  for  refuge  after  the  Assyrian  armies 
withdrew  from  Palestine.  Thousands  of  Jews  were  left  behind 
in  their  land  during  the  Babylonian  deportation,  and  the  de- 
portation of  Israelites  by  the  Assyrians  cannot  be  supposed 
much  more  complete  than  the  Babylonian.  Purity  of  race  was 
neither  preserved  nor  regarded  as  of  much  moment  after  the 
captivity.  Many  of  the  Gentile  people  of  the  land,  after  the 
return,  attached  themselves  to  the  Jewish  Church  and  people 
(Ezra  vi.  21),  and  "  became  Jews,"  which  is  the  expression  used 
of  similar  adhesions  to  the  Jewish  religion  mentioned  in  the 
book  of  Esther  (Esther  viii.  17).  The  separation  of  the  Jews 
from  their  foreign  wives,  w^hich  was  brought  about  later  by 
Ezra,  must  necessarily  have  been  for  the  most  part  a  separ- 
ation from  such  foreign  wives  as  had  not  separated  themselves 
from  "the  filthiness  of  the  people  of  the  land"  (Ezra  ix.  11;. 
If  it  were  otherwise,  the  act  of  Ezra  would  have  been  nothing 
else  than  a  plain  transgression  of  one  of  the  most  solemn 
ordinances  of  the  law  of  Moses  (Exod.  xii.  48,  49 ;  see  also 
Ezra  vi.  21,  etc.),  which  did  not  forbid  marriages  with  indi- 
viduals of  other  nations  except  in  the  case  of  idolaters  (see  the 
case  Deut.  xxi.  11-13).  Many  of  the  Israelites  and  Jews  who 
were  not  able  or  willing  to  return  with  Zerubbabel  or  Ezra 
came  back  at  different  times  to  the  land  of  Palestine.  Traces 
of  the  ten  tribes  were  not  only  to  be  found  among  the  people 
of  Galilee,  but  among  those  in  Jerusalem,  some  of  whom 
kept  alive  the  memory  of  the  tribe  to  which  their  forefathers 
originally  belonged  (Luke  ii.  36),  though  in  most  cases  this  was 


246  ZECHARIAII   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  ix.  10. 

entirely  forgotten.  The  idea  of  the  "  lost  tribes"  is  a  m)'th  of 
later  ages.  The  prophets  often  termed  the  members  of  the 
two  tribes,  even  when  they  formed  a  separate  kingdom  apart 
from  that  known  as  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  by  the  sacred  name 
of  "  Israel,"  and  the  name  of  Israel  was  unquestionably  used  in 
post-exilian  times  to  denote  all  the  members  of  any  of  the 
twelve  tribes  without  distinctioR,  Inasmuch,  however,  as  the 
ycivs  were  the  last  portion  of  the  covenant  people  to  retain 
their  political  independence,  and  as  they  had  retained  on  the 
whole  their  religious  faith,  and  inasmuch  as  from  the  tribe  of 
Judah  the  great  kings  of  an  united  Israel  had  sprung,  and 
that  the  Messiah  was  to  come  from  its  royal  house,  the  name 
of  "Jew"  became  in  later  days  the  appellation  of  the  entire 
nation.  For  the  prophets  of  that  tribe,  and  those  of  the  tribe 
of  Levi,  which  always  shared  its  destinies,  encouraged  the 
people  in  the  days  of  captivity  to  look  forward  to  a  return  to 
their  land,  and  the  people  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  with  their 
princes,  their  priests  and  prophets,  were  the  first  to  respond  to 
the  permission  to  return  to  Palestine.  The  name  of  "Jew" 
was,  therefore,  looked  upon  by  all  the  Israelites  as  a  name 
of  honour,  and  became  in  every  land  the  usual  designation 
of  the  people  of  the  whole  of  the  twelve  tribes.  The  New 
Testament  knows  no  distinction  whatever  between  those  whoni 
it  designates  alike  as  "children  of  Israel,"  "men  of  Israel," 
and  "  Jews." 

There  is,  therefore,  nothing  whatever  surprising  in  a  prophet 
of  the  restoration  speaking  of  "  Ephraim  and  Judah  ;"  for  in 
thus  speaking  of  the  two  component  parts  of  the  people  of 
God,  he  pointed  out  Israel's  unity,  and  predicted  a  common 
blessing  of  which  both  portions  were  alike  to  be  partakers. 
When  the  prophet  spoke  of  the  chariot,  horse  and  battle  bow 
being  cut  off  and  destroyed,  he  used  language  which  is  almost 
cited  verbatim  from  the  prophet  Micah,  and  is  employed  in  a 
similar  sense.     Such  lancjuaee  cannot  fairh'  be  adduced  as  a 


Ch.  ix.  lo.]  THE   COMING   OF   THE   KING.  247 

proof  of  a  pre-exilian  date  in  face  of  the  passage  in  Ezekiel 
(xxxvii.  16-22)  and  the  earlier  passage  in  this  book  (chap.  viii. 
13).  By  the  adoption  of  such  language  as  his  own,  the  prophet 
seems  to  predict  incidentally  that  the  political  independence 
which  his  countrymen  so  yearned  after  would  be  granted  to 
them  according  to  their  desire,  but  that  the  military  power 
which  they  coveted  would  itself  come  to  an  end  (as  Micah 
had  previously  foretold)  when  the  king,  whose  advent  they 
looked  for,  should  come  in  his  glory.  The  glory,  however,  of 
that  king  would  be  essentially  diverse  from  the  glory  so  prized 
on  earth.  His  victories  would  be  won  not  by  the  might  of 
man  but  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit.  The  sword  with  which 
he  would  subdue  the  heathen  should  be  that  sharp  sword 
which  cometh  out  of  his  mouth  (Rev.  xix.  15).  With  the 
breath  of  his  lips  he  would  slay  the  wicked  (Isa.  xi.  4),  and 
speak  peace  unto  the  nations  (Zech.  ix.  10). 

This  last  expression  can  scarcely  signify  that  the  Messiah 
by  his  word  of  power  should  command  peace  to  the  nations 
(as    Hitzig,  Kohler,  and    others  imagine),^  or  compose  their 
quarrels  and  disputes  (as  Rosenmiiller,  etc.  ;  comp.  Mic.  iv.  3). 
The  phrase  "to  speak  peace  "  {Ut?'\^  '^^'^)  is  not  found  in  this 
signification.     It  is  used  sometimes  in  the  sense  of  to  speak 
that  which  avowedly  has  peace  as  its  object,  whether  that  pro- 
fession be  genuine  or  not  (as  Ps.  xxviii.  3  ''^  ''"i?^'^,  Ps.  xxxv. 
20;  Jer.  ix.  7,  verse  8  in  Eng.  Ver.),  or  that  which  announces 
peace  and  the  removal  of  hostility.    Thus  God  is  said  to  speak 
peace  to  his  people  (Ps.  Ixxxv.  9,  verse  8  in  Eng.  Ver.),  and 
the  Messiah  is  said  here  (verse    10)   to  declare  and  publish 
peace,  not  merely  to  his  own  people  (Isa.  Hi.  7),  but  also  to 
the  nations  (comp.  Mic.  v.  5).     This  he  would  do   by  setting 
up  his  spiritual  kingdom  among  the  nations.     Thus,  too,  the 

^  Hitzig,  however,  appeals  to  the  fact  that  the  noun  121  is  used  frequently  in  the 
sense  of  a  command,  which  cannot  be  denied.  The  usage  of  the  special  phrase 
is,  however,  against  his  view. 


248  ZECHARIAH    AND    HIS    PROniECIES.  [Ch.  ix.  10. 

Psalmist  says  of  Jerusalem,  "  let  me  speak  peace  concerning 
thee"  (Ps.  cxxii.  8,  as  Delitzsch  renders  the  passage,  com- 
paring the  const.  '2  12*7  in  Ps.  Ixxxvii.  3;  Deut.  vi.  7),  or  "let 
me  speak  peace  in  thee  "  (as  Hupfeld,  i.e.,  wish  peace  in  thee  ; 
comp.  also  the  phrase  to  speak  good,  Jer.  xii.  6  ;  2  Kings 
XXV.  28).  The  phrase  is  also  used  in  Esther  x.  3  of  Mordecai, 
who  in  his  high  office  sought  the  wealth  of  the  Jewish  people, 
and  spoke  that  which  tended  to  the  peace  of  their  posterity.  ^ 
The  limits  assigned  by  the  prophet  to  the  Messianic  rule 
are  in  accordance  with  those  mentioned  in  the  prophet  Micah 
(Mic.  vii.  12).  The  words  are,  however,  exactly  the  same  as 
those  which  occur  in  Ps.  Ixxii.  8.  This  fact  is  sufficient  to 
disprove  the  view  maintained  by  Hitzig,  namely,  that  the 
boundaries  here  assigned  to  the  Messiah's  rule  are  those 
assigned  to  the  holy  land  in  Gen.  xv.  18,  i.e.,  from  the  Nile  to 
the  Euphrates,  which  rivers,  he  thinks,  are  also  referred  to  in 
chap.  X.  1 1,  under  the  name  of"  seas.'"  Here  he  would  regard 
the  boundaries  marked  out  to  be  from  the  Nile  to  the 
Euphrates,  and  from  the  latter  river  to  the  Mediterranean. 
From  sea  to  sea  must  be  used  here  as  in  other  places  (Amos 
viii.  12  ;  Mic.  vii.  12)  in  a  general  and  indefinite  signifi- 
cation, and  not  as  marking  out  any  well-defined  limits.  For 
similar  reasons  we  cannot  suppose  with  Eichhorn  that  the 
limits  alluded  to  are  from  the  Dead  Sea  to  the  Mediterranean, 
and  from  the  Euphrates  to  the  deserts  of  Arabia.  The  ex- 
pression "the  river'  must,  however,  denote  the  Euphrates,  the 
word  without  the  article  being  sometimes  used  as  a  proper 
name  (comp.  Mic.  vii.  12  ;  Isa.  vii.  20).  As  Kcil  well  notes, 
the  river  Euphrates  is  the  terminus  a  quo,  the  point  whence 
the  kingdom  begins,  the  ends  of  the  earth  are  the  teruiiniis 
ad  quevi,  the  limits  to  which  it  extends. 

The  suffix  in  'W"lT  (Estlicr  x.  3)  does  not  refer  to  Mordecai,  as  the  transl.  of 
our  A.V,  implies,  "  speaking  peace  to  all  his  seed,"  but  to  the  noun  people  imme- 
diately preceding  (VS^). 


Ch.  ix.  lo,  II.]  THE   COMING   OF   THE   KING.  249 

The  address  in  verse  11  is  most  naturally  regarded  as 
spoken  to  the  "  daughter  of  Zion,"  who  is  immediately  before 
addressed  in  verse  9,  and  by  which  expression  the  whole 
remnant  of  the  covenant  people  is  signified.  "  Thou  even ! 
(even  thou!)  by  the  blood  of  thy  covenant  I  will  send  forth 
thy  prisoners  out  of  the  pit  in  which  there  is  no  water."  ^  It  is 
perfectly  arbitrary  to  suppose  with  Pressel  that  the  prophet 
turns  away  from  Judah  to  address  Israel  as  distinguished 
from  Judah.  There  is  no  intimation  of  such  a  change  in  the 
text.  Israel  as  distinguished  from  Judah  is  only  casually 
referred  to  in  the  expression  "  I  will  cut  off  the  chariot  from 
Ephraim  and  the  horse  from  Jerusalem,"  and  no  intimation  is 
given  in  the  previous  portion  of  the  prophecy  that  Ephraim 
is  regarded  as  otherwise  than  closely  united  to  Judah  and  as 
forming  part  and  parcel  of  one  people.  It  would  be  most 
harsh  to  view  verses  11  and  12  as  containing  a  special  address 
to  Ephraim  ;  especially  (when  in  verse  13)  Judah  and  Ephraim 
are  again  spoken  of  as  the  two  portions  of  one  people  who  are 
in  that  very  verse  addressed  in  their  collective  and  united 
character  as  Zion,  or  Jerusalem,  which  city  was  ever  regarded 
by  the  prophet  as  the  capital  of  the  united  twelve  tribes 
viewed  in  their  theocratic  character." 

The  blood  of  the  covenant  is  the  blood  spoken  of  in 
connexion  with  the  great  covenant  between  Jahaveh  and 
his  people  in  Exod.  xxiv.  3-8  ;  Ps.  1.  5.     In  the  solemn  rati- 

^  On  the  difficulties  connected  witli  the  expression  JyiX  D^  with  wliicli  tlie  verse 
commences,  see  our  crit.  comm. 

2  Hitzig  maintains  that  the  prophet  turns  to  address  a  different  class  from  those 
addressed  before,  and  thinks  that  the  persons  here  spoken  to  must  be  the  cap- 
tives in  Javan  or  Greece,  the  captivity  (Amos  i.  6),  whose  prisoners  (D'^T'DS)  were  the 
children  of  the  captivity  (ni^Jn  ''J3,  Ezra  vi.  16),  the  sale  of  whom  by  the  Phoeni- 
cians to  the  Greeks  he  considers  alluded  to  in  verse  13.  Maurer  rightly  condemns 
this  interpretation  as  exceedingly  arbitrary.  The  fem.  pronouns  in  verse  1 1  must 
refer  to  the  daughter  of  Zion,  or  the  daughter  of  Jerasalem  addressed  in  verse  9, 
and  addressed  again  under  the  name  of  "  Zion "  in  verse  13 — see  our  crit.  comm. 
It  is  harsh  to  regard  the  feminine  pronouns  in  verse  1 1  as  used  in  a  collective 
sense.     They  ought  in  such  a  case  to  have  a  noun  to  which  they  could  be  referred. 


250  ZECHARIAII   AND    IIIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  ix.  ii. 

fication  of  that  covenant  Israel  had  offered  up  offerings  to 
God,  and  presented  before  him  the  blood,  which  indicated 
both  atonement  on  the  one  hand  and  surrender  of  soul  (for 
the  blood  is  the  life  or  soul)  on  the  other.  By  the  sacri- 
fices of  the  law,  atonement,  reconciliation,  and  dedication  to 
God  were  typified.  By  virtue  of  that  covenant  made  with  his 
people  God  was  determined  to  save  and  redeem  them  from 
their  afflictions.  With  New  Testament  light  we  cannot  but 
think  of  the  fact  pointed  out  so  forcibly  by  the  writer  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats 
could  not  really  remove  sin  (Heb,  ix.  18-24,  x-  4),  but  was  a 
sure  sign  of  a  more  noble  sacrifice,  and  of  another  covenant 
established  upon  better  promises  than  those  of  the  Mosaic  law 
(Heb.  viii.  6).  But  we  cannot  assert  that  such  is  the  meaning 
to  be  assigned  to  this  special  passage. 

The  language  of  the  passage  (verse  ii)  might  be  regarded 
either  as  referring  to  the  past  or  the  future  ;  for  the  perfect 
used  in  the  original  might  be  taken  in  either  signification.  If 
the  words  refer  to  the  future,  the  prophet  speaks  of  a  more 
extensive  deliverance  of  the  covenant  people,  for  whom  a  day 
of  greater  freedom  was  at  last  to  dawn.  If  to  the  past,  the 
deliverance  already  vouchsafed  from  the  Babylonish  captivity 
is  that  referred  to. 

The  passage  appears  to  us  to  contain  a  reference  to  the 
past  deliverance,  on  which  an  exhortation  is  founded,  setting 
before  them  a  present  duty,  to  which  is  annexed  a  promise 
of  a  future  blessing.  Zion,  who  was  exhorted  in  the  pre- 
vious verse  to  rejoice  in  the  thought  of  the  future  coming 
of  her  king,  was  reminded  of  the  deliverance  which  had 
already  been  granted  to  her,  and  of  the  ground  on  which  that 
deliverance  had  been  vouchsafed.  God,  who  had  been  mind- 
ful of  their  forefathers  in  Egypt,  had  not  forgotten  the  blood 
of  the  covenant  which  he  liad  made  with  ihcm  when  he 
brought  them  up  out  of  the  house  of  bondage.      By  virtue  of 


Ch.  ix.  II,  12.]  THE   COMING   OF   THE   KING.  25 1 

that  covenant  he  had  already  delivered  the  captives  of  Zion 
out  of  the  pit  in  which  they  had  been  cast,  namely,  out  of  the 
captivity  in  Babylon.  They  had  been  cast  into  that  pit  as 
Joseph  into  the  cistern.  But  the  pit  was  dry,  there  was  no 
water  in  it  (comp.  Gen.  xxxvii.  24).  Had  there  been  water  in 
that  pit  they  must  have  already  perished.  But  in  their  case, 
as  in  that  of  Joseph,  they  had  been  cast  into  misery  with  the 
hope  of  a  future  deliverance  (Gen.  xxxvii.  22).  The  decree 
of  Cyrus,  in  which  God's  overruling  providence  on  behalf  of 
his  people  might  have  been  clearly  seen,  gave  both  Jews  and 
Israelites  permission  to  return  to  their  own  land.  If  many  of 
that  nation  still  preferred  to  remain  in  the  land  of  exile,  the 
fault  was  their  own.  They  had  been  hindered  in  many  cases 
by  worldliness  and  unbelief.  Hence  there  were  still  many 
of  the  covenant  people  who  were  in  reality  but  as  prisoners, 
bound  in  exile.  Such  the  prophet  earnestly  exhorts  again  to 
return.  There  were  glorious  blessings  in  store  for  Israel  in 
the  land  of  promise.  The  prisoners  in  exile  were,  therefore, 
"prisoners  of  hope,"  men  with  glorious  hopes  and  blessed 
expectations  before  them.  (See  Targ.  in  crit.  comm.)  They 
were  bidden  to  come  up  from  the  low-lying  pit,  where  they 
were  no  longer  constrained  to  abide.  At  the  call  of  their  God 
they  should  return  to  the  steepness,  or  rocks  like  a  fortress  of 
their  own  native  land  (such  is  rather  the  sense,  and  not  "  for- 
tress," as  in  our  Authorised  Version).  God  would  then  plant 
their  feet  indeed  upon  a  rock  and  put  a  new  song  in  their 
mouths  (Ps.  xl.  3,  4,  or  verses  2,  3,  Eng.  Ver.) ;  he  would  place 
them  upon  the  rock  that  was  higher  than  they  (Ps.  Ixi.  3,  4). 
They  should  lift  up  their  eyes  unto  the  hills  whence  their 
help  should  come  (Ps.  cxxi.  i).  For  the  Lord  had  done  great 
things  for  them,  whereof  they  should  be  glad  (Ps.  cxxvi.  2,  3), 
and  he  would  yet  do  greater  things  :  "  Even  to-day,"  said  the 
Lord,  "  I  announce  it,  I  will  restore  double  to  thee,"  ^  i.e.,  a 
^  The  Chaldee  Targum  paraphrases  verse  12  :  "To-day  also  I  send  to  announce 


252  ZECIIARIAII   AND   IIIS   PROPHECIES.     [Ch.  ix.  ii,  13. 

double  amount  of  glory  in  the  future  as  compared  with  all  the 
days  of  suffering  in  the  past  (Isa.  Ixi.  7).' 

In  the  verses  that  follow  the  prophet  depicts  how  this 
state  of  things  would  be  brought  about.  In  his  prophecy 
that  the  war  chariots  and  war  horses  of  Ephraim  and  Jeru- 
salem should  be  cut  off  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah,  Zcchariah 
incidentally  predicted  that  the  people  of  the  Jews  so  lately 
recovered  from  exile  would  before  the  Messiah's  coming  once 
more  possess  military  power.  Of  that  day  of  the  people's 
independence  the  prophet,  speaking  in  God's  name,  says 
(v.  13) :  "  For  I  will  bend  (or  draw)  Judah  for  me  as  a  bow,  I 
will  fill  it  with  Ephraim  (as  a  bow  is  filled  with  arrows),  and  I 
will  lift  up  (as  a  spear)  thy  sons,  Zion,  against  thy  sons, 
Greece  !  and  I  will  make  thee  as  the  sword  of  a  mighty 
one."- 

Those  scholars  who  regard  this  prophecy  as  belonging  to  a 
pre-exilian  period  have  generally  maintained  that  the  prophet 
here  predicts  that  the  Jews  who  were  sold  as  slaves  to  the 
Greeks  by  the  Phoenicians  and  Edomitcs  (Joel  iv.  6,  E.V.  iii.  6) 

to  you,  that  I  will  bring  to  you  the  double  good  things  which  I  sent  before  to  you." 
R.  Salomo  ben  Yizhak  explains  it  as,  "  moreover  I  announce  to  you  a  second  mes- 
sage besides  that  concerning  the  building  of  the  temple.  But  what  that  other 
announcement  may  be  is  explained  in  those  things  which  follow." 

*  Pressel,  we  believe,  stands  alone  in  translating  this  "the  second  rank  will  1 
give  back  to  thee,"  which  he  explains  of  Ephraim  attaining  again  to  the  rank 
which  was  allotted  to  that  tribe  in  the  blessing  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xlix.  8,  ff.).  But  in 
that  case  the  article  would  have  naturally  been  used.  There  is  also  no  mention 
made  of  Judah's  superior  position  in  this  passage.  The  word  can  well  be  rendered 
double,  as  in  Exod.  xvi.  22  ;  Isa.  Ixi.  7  ;  Job  xlii.  lo. 

-  Pressel  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  first  two  verbs  in  this  verse  are  simple 
perfects,  while  the  last  two  are  perfects  with  the  so-called  vav  conv.  (as  is  seen  by 
the  tone  syllable).  He  maintains  that  this  proves  that  the  former  are  to  be  taken 
not  as  proph.  perfects,  but  as  past  tenses,  while  the  two  latter  must  be  regarded  as 
futures.  The  tenses  in  the  past  he  regards  as  refeiring  to  the  Davidic  era,  when 
Judah  was  the  bow  and  Ephraim  the  arrow  in  the  hand  of  the  Lord,  while  the 
last  two  refer  to  the  future.  But  he  is  mistaken  in  his  criticism.  The  two  perfects 
with  vav  conv.  prove  that  the  perfects  preceding  are  to  be  regarded  as  prophetic, 
otherwise  the  perfect  with  vav  conv.  would  not  have  been  used,  but  the  verb 
would  have  been  in  the  imperfect,  sec  Driver,  §  113,  i  ;  Ewald,  §  342  c. 


Ch.  ix.  13]  THE   COMING   OF   THE   KING.  253 

would  by  Divine  power  rise  up  against  their  masters  and  over- 
come them.  This  view  presupposes  that  the  event  alkided  to 
by  Joel  was  recent,  or  at  least  that  its  memory  was  fresh  in  the 
minds  of  the  people  at  the  time  when  the  present  prophecy 
was  composed.  Though  Joel  probably  prophesied  in  the  early 
portion  of  the  year  of  Joash,  yet  to  suppose  that  the  incident 
he  alludes  to  casts  light  upon  the  prediction  in  our  passage 
when  considered  as  pre-exilian,  is  to  explain  what  is  admittedly 
uncertain  by  that  which  is  equally  so.  It  may  be  disputed 
whether  Amos  1.  6,  9,  really  casts  any  light  upon  the  passage 
in  Joel.  For  while  the  Phoenicians  and  the  Philistines  are 
denounced  by  the  prophet  Amos  for  selling  the  Israelite  or 
Jewish  captives  to  the  Edomites,  the  prophet  Joel  speaks  of 
the  captives  as  being  sold  to  the  Greeks.  The  Greeks,  who 
merely  purchased  the  captives,  could  scarcely  be  considered 
as  the  most  guilty  parties  ;  and  there  is  no  allusion  whatever 
made  to  the  ill-treatment  of  such  captives  by  the  Greeks, 
as  has  been  ingeniously  suggested  in  order  to  assign  a  cause 
for  the  prophetic  denunciation.  Moreover,  the  prophecy  in 
Zechariah  cannot  be  supposed  to  speak  of  an  insurrection  of 
such  captives  against  their  masters.  The  prophecy  distinctly 
speaks  of  a  national  uprising  of  the  "  sons  of  Zion  "  against 
the  "  sons  of  Greece,"  and  of  a  murderous  warfare  carried 
on  between  them,  in  which  conflict  Jahaveh  represented  as 
a  mighty  hero,  armed  with  bows  and  arrows,  spear  and  sword, 
going  forth  to  deal  death  and  destruction  against  his  enemies 
on  every  side.^ 

'  Bleek  (Stiidicn  u.  Kritiken)  concludes  from  a  comparison  of  Amos  i.  6-9,  and 
Joel  iv.  4-8,  thai  shortly  before  the  composition  of  this  prophecy,  which  he  con- 
jectures was  written  a  little  earlier  or  later  than  the  prophecies  of  Joel  and  Amos, 
the  Philistines  and  Phoenicians  carried  on  a  successful  war  against  Israel  and  Judah 
allied  together.  Though  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  do  not  any 
say  anything  of  such  a  war,  Bleek  regards  this  as  nothing  strange  when  one  takes 
into  consideration  the  very  incomplete  accounts  given  in  those  writings  of  the  long 
reigns  of  Uzziah  and  of  Jeroboam  II.  The  successful  campaign  of  Uzziah  against 
the  Philistines  (2  Chron.    xxvi.  6)  he  thinks  must  have  been  earlier.      In  the 


254  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS   TROPHECIES.  [Ch.  ix.  14. 

It  is  now  generally  agreed  by  scholars  that  Javan,  in  verse 
13  really  signifies  Greece,  and  that  Greece  is  also  to  be  under- 
stood in  Joel  (\V  signifying  the  lonians  and  then  the  Greeks). 
The  view,  of  Credner  and  Hitzig,  that  a  city  or  district  in 
Arabia  Felix  is  signified  is  now  abandoned.  Pressel  seems 
correct  in  considering  that  Javan  means  rather  the  Grecian 
people  than  the  land  of  Greece.  He  refers  to  the  great  table 
of  nations  in  Gen.  x.  2-5,  and  to  the  occurrence  of  the  name 
with  those  of  Tubal  and  Meshech  in  Ezek.  xxvii.  13,  as  nations 
who  traded  with  Tyre,  and  brought  slaves  and  vessels  of  copper 
into  her  markets  (comp.  Isa.  Ixvi.  19).  He  maintains  that  these 
allusions  to  Greece,  as  well  as  the  other  references  to  Chittim 
(D''J]13),  in  the  Old  Test,  (see  Num.  xxiv.  24;  Isa.  xxiii. 
I,  12  ;  Jer.  ii.  10  ;  Ezek.  xxvii.  6),  coupled  with  the  facts  that 
David's  body-guard  was  composed  of  Cretan  and  Philistine 
mercenaries  {"^rhpTT)  ■'-H'lSrT  2  Sam.  viii,  18),^  and  also  that 
the  tribe  of  Dan  had  entered  into  close  communication  with 
Javan,  as  stated  in  Ezek.  xxvii.  19,  etc.,  all  prove  that  Grecian 
influences  and  culture  were  more  known  to  the  Israelites  than 
is  generally  imagined.  His  view  of  this  prophecy,  is  that  the 
writer  (who  according  to  his  idea  lived  in  pre-exilian  times, 
"  in  which  Greek  culture  began  gradually  to  exert  its  re- 
actionary influence  over  Asia")  prophesied  that  a  contest 
would  take  place  between  the  Greek  culture  and  religion  and 
the  religion  of  the  God  of  Israel,  which  contest  actually 
occurred. 

The  explanation  is  ingenious;  but  while  admitting  that 
there  was  early  intercourse  with  the  Greek  people  on  the  part 
of  the  Israelitish  people  through  means  of  the  Phoenicians  on 

war  which  Bleek  considers  referred  to,  many  prisoners  of  both  Israel  and  Judah 
were  sold  to  the  Greeks.  At  the  same  time  he  considers  Damascus  and  Ilamath 
may  have  been  unfriendly  to  the  Israelites,  and  hence  the  predictions  of  the 
prophet.  But  who  can  be  satisfied  with  such  arbitrary  conjectures  in  which, 
however,  Bleek  does  not  stand  alone  ? 

'  See  Ewald's //iV/.  of  Israel,  vol.  i.  (Marlincau's  transl.,  p.  246). 


Ch.  ix.  13,  14.]  THE   COMING   OF   THE   KING.  2^5 

the  north  and  the  Philisthies  on  the  south,  we  fail  to  see  that 
it  is  at  all  likely  that  a  prophet,  in  the  days  of  Ahaz,  according 
to  Pressel's  idea,  could  have  conceived  the  idea  of  such  a 
contest.  Zion  and  Greece  in  Zechariah  are  opposed  to  one 
another  as  the  city  of  God  (civitas  Dei,  Augustine)  and  the 
city  of  the  world  (civitas  mundi).  This  idea  is  new  and  is 
post-exilian.  The  true  exposition  of  the  passage  is  no  doubt 
that  stated  by  Jerome  to  have  been  given  by  the  Jews  in  his 
day,  namely,  that  it  is  a  prediction  of  those  Jewish  wars  waged 
under  the  leadership  of  the  Maccabee  chieftains  against  the 
Greek  rulers  of  Syria.  Mention  is  made  in  the  book  of 
Daniel  of  Greece  in  connection  with  the  Jewish  people,  al- 
though no  clear  prophecy  was  even  then  given  which,  prior 
to  its  fulfilment,  would  have  led  any  one  to  consider  that  the 
Jews  would  be  brought  into  a  struggle  with  the  Grecian  power. 
The  name  of  Greece,  however,  must  have  become  known  to 
the  Jews  who  had  returned  from  Babylon  and  the  other  lands 
of  their  captivity,  soon  after  the  burning  of  Sardis  (B.C.  499), 
as  the  fame  of  that  act  must  have  been  spread  widely 
through  the  east,  as  well  as  the  news  of  the  breaking  out  of 
the  war  between  Persia  and  Greece.  It  was  probably  in  this 
later  period  that  Zechariah  delivered  this  special  prophecy, 
which  seems  to  have  been  separated  from  his  earlier  predic- 
tions by  a  very  considerable  period. 

The  wars  of  the  Jews  against  Greece,  under  the  heroic 
leadership  of  the  Maccabees,  were  occasioned  by  the  attempt 
to  overturn  the  Jewish  religion  and  substitute  in  its  place 
Grecian  customs.  Comp.  i  Mace.  viii.  9,  18  ;  2  Mace.  iv.  13,  15. 
Those  wars  were  essentially  religious  in  their  character.  The 
Maccabean  heroes  went  forth  to  the  contest  with  the  full  con- 
viction that  the  cause  in  which  they  were  engaged  was  the 
cause  of  God,  and  that  the  Lord  was  with  them  in  all  their 
various  difficulties  and  trials.  In  the  glowing  language  of  the 
prophet  (ver.  14),  Jahaveh  was  seen  over  them,  and  his  arrow 


256  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  ix.  14. 

went  forth  as  the  lightnhig  ;  ^  yea,  the  Lord  Jahavch  blew 
with  the  trumpet,  for  he  was  the  real  captain  of  his  host,  and 
the  war  waged  by  the  Jews  was  in  defence  of  his  truth.  The 
Lord  is  further  described  as  going  forth  in  the  storms  of  the 
south,  because  the  storms  from  that  quarter,  coming  from  the 
desert,  were  generally  the  most  violent  (Isa.  xxi.  i).  The 
language  used  is  highly  figurative,  but  it  need  not  surprise  us 
that  the  exploits  of  the  Maccabees  should  be  so  described, 
when  we  call  to  mind  the  vivid  language  in  which  David 
depicts  his  own  deliverance  in  the  remarkable  song  which  he 
sang  in  the  day  when  God  delivered  him  from  his  foes  (Ps. 
xviii.  6-19  ;  compare  also  Ps.  cxliv.  6,  7,  Ps.  Ixxvii.  16-19, 
and  especially  Habb.  iii.  12- 14).  Small  as  were  the  armies 
which  Judas  and  his  brethren  commanded,  those  armies  were 
the  armies  of  Israel,  and  they  went  forth  to  battle  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  the  God  of  the  armies  of  Israel, 
who  was  then  defied  by  the  Grecian  foe,  even  as  in  former 
days  he  had  been  defied  by  the  Philistine  (i  Sam.  xvii.  45). 
Thus  doing  battle  against  the  enemies  of  their  God,  "  out 
of  weakness  they  were  made  strong,  they  waxed  valiant 
in  fight,  and  turned  to  flight  the  armies  of  the  aliens"  (Heb. 
ii-  34)-' 

*  It  is  difficult  to  know  how  to  treat  such  expositions  as  the  following  of  Bisliop 
Wordsworth,  namely,  that  by  "Christ's  arrows"  the  apostles  are  here  meant 
"  whose  name  means  sent  forth,  whom  after  he  had  risen  from  the  dead  and 
ascended  into  heaven  (Ps.  Ixviii.  18  ;  Eph.  iv.  8-1 1.)  he  sent  forth  from  his  bow 
like  arrows  winged  with  feathers  from  the  plumage  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Divine 
Dove,  whose  wings  are  silver  wings,  and  his  feathers  like  gold  (Ps.  Ixviii.  13). 
They  are  the  missionaries  whom  Christ  is  ever  sending  forth  from  the  bow  of  his 
Divine  commission  to  subdue  the  world  to  himself.  They  are  his  arrows,  his 
quiver  is  full  of  them,  and  they  will  never  fail  of  victory,  his  sngittis  totus  orbis 
vulneratus  et  captus  est,  says  St.  Jerome.  .  .  .  And  they  are  like  arrows 
discharged  from  Jerusalem  against  the  sons  of  Greece,  or  Javan  (Dan.  viii.  31), 
because  they  were  sent  forth  from  Zion  against  the  Greek  or  heathen  world  to 
bring  it  into  sulijection  to  Christ."  We  feel  it  a  duty  to  protest  in  the  interests  of 
evangelical  interpretation  against  all  such  expositions  from  whatever  quarter  ihcy 
may  come. 

^  Mr.  Chamberlain,  who  is  perhaps  the  best  representative  of  his  school  of  pro- 


Ch.  ix.  13.]  THE   COMING   OF   THE   KING.  257 

The  persons  composing  the  armies  of  Israel  at  that  time 
were  no  doubt  members  of  all  the  twelve  tribes.  The  frag- 
mentary histories  of  the  restoration  do  not  warrant  us  to  con- 
clude that  there  were  not  very  many  Israelites  and  Jews  who 
found  their  way  back  to  the  land  of  Palestine  at  other  times 
than  those  mentioned  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  We  must 
not  forget  that  Jewish  history  is  almost  a  blank  from 
the  death  of  Nehemiah  (about  B.C.  415)  up  to  the  accession 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  in  B.C.  175.  We  have  but  a  few 
fragmentary  incidents  of  that  long  period  of  two  centuries 
treasured  up  by  Josephus.  (See  Milman's  History  of  the 
Jezvs,  4th  edition,  vol.  i.  p.  443.)  It  is  highly  probable  that 
both  previous  to  the  Maccabean  era,  during  the  wars  of  that 

phetic  interpretation,  seeks  in  every  way  to  depreciate  the  victories  gained  by  the 
Maccabee  clrieftains,  and  the  deliverance  vouchsafed  at  that  era.  He  maintains 
that  such  victories  can  scarcely  be  termed  a  deliverance  from  the  Lord  their  God 
(ch.  ix.  16).  The  troubled  state  of  that  time  is  dwelt  upon  by  him  with  emphasis, 
as  also  the  state  of  Jerusalem  during  a  considerable  portion  of  that  period.  With 
all  their  failings,  the  Jews  of  that  day  were  as  a  people  resolute  for  their  faith  and 
religion.  They  did  achieve  their  independence  though  that  independence  lasted 
but  for  a  brief  period.  See  Milman's  History.  The  period  of  the  Judges  of  Israel, 
so  favourably  spoken  of  by  Samuel  (i  Sam.  xii.  11)  could,  if  treated  in  a  like  spirit, 
be  represented  as  a  much  darker  era  than  that  of  the  Maccabees.  If  the  noble 
Maccabean  chiefs,  Judas  and  Jonathan,  are  to  be  censured  because  they  sought  the 
alliance  of  the  heathen  in  their  contests,  what  may  not  be  said  of  the  moral  cha- 
racter of  Ehud,  Gideon,  Jephthah,  or  Sampson,  who  yet  performed  mighty  acts  in 
the  name  and  by  the  strength  of  the  Lord  their  God  !  Surely  the  guidance  of  the 
Lord  was  as  conspicuous  in  the  days  of  the  Maccabees  as  in  those  of  Sampson  or 
Jephthah  ?  Chamberlain's  argument  that  the  Jews  did  not  then  contend  against 
Greece  deserves  just  a  passing  notice.  The  four  kingdoms  founded  by  the  suc- 
cessors of  Alexander  are  distinctly  recognised  as  Grecian  in  Daniel  viii.  21-25. 
The  armies  against  which  the  Jewish  chieftains  fought  were  essentially  Greek 
armies  trained  on  the  Greek  method.  The  soldiers  were  "  sons  of  Greece."  Anti- 
ochus Epiphanes  was  essentially  a  Greek  king.  See  I  Mace.  viii.  9,  18  ;  2  Mace. 
iv.  13,  15.  Chamberlain  seeks  to  refer  all  this  to  the  future,  and  talks  of  an  alliance 
of  the  Greek  Church  and  kingdom  with  the  Russian  Empire,  which  he  views  as  Gog, 
and  of  an  union  of  these  with  the  Papacy  !  The  special  part  which  the  Jews  are  to 
bear  in  this  contest  is  to  fight  the  Greeks  !  It  may  be  well  to  refer  to  such  views, 
which  always  crop  up  in  England  in  the  time  of  any  Russian  difficulty,  and  are  sure 
to  be  highly  popular  in  some  quarters.  They  are  discreditable  to  the  state  of  Biblical 
exposition  among  us,  and  cannot  be  discussed  at  length  by  the  sober  expositor.  Mr. 
Chamberlain's  Notes  on  the  Restoration  of  Israel,  appeared  during  the  Crimean  war. 

S 


Z3( 


ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  ix.  15. 


period,  and  especially  after  the  Jews  had  obtained  their  inde- 
pendence, large  numbers  of  the  Israelites  returned  to  their 
land.  But,  as  already  noted,  the  name  "Jew"  had  become 
the  name  whereby  all  the  members  of  the  covenant  people 
were  known,  and  their  religion  was  termed  the  Jewish  religion. 
The  difference  between  the  tribes  was  practically  of  no  im- 
portance, and  was  generally  unknown  by  the  nations  among 
whom  they  were  so  widely  scattered.  No  fair  argument  can, 
therefore,  be  drawn  from  the  silence  of  history  as  to  their  re- 
storation. Joscphus  was  evidently  as  ignorant  of  the  annals 
of  that  time  as  we  are. 

Zechariah  describes  in  vivid  language  the  holy  war  which 
was  afterwards  carried  on  by  the  Maccabees.  In  that  day  of 
conflict  with  the  might  of  Greece,  the  third  world-monarchy 
of  Daniel,  Jahaveh  would  himself  be  the  defence  of  his 
people  (verse  15).  He  would  defend  them  as  with  a  shield, 
and  they  should  eat  up  their  foes  who  would  desire  to  eat 
up  the  people  of  the  Lord  (Ps.  xiv.  5,  verse  4  in  E.  V.),  even 
Israel.  The  object  of  the  verb  "cat,''  in  verse  15,  is  not 
directly  mentioned,  but  the  idea  before  the  prophet's  mind 
was  most  probably  that  to  which  Balaam  gave  utterance  ages 
before  when  speaking  of  Israel :  "  Behold  the  people  shall  rise 
up  as  a  great  lion,  and  lift  up  himself  as  a  young  lion  ;  he 
shall  not  lie  down  till  he  cat  of  the  prey  and  drink  the  blood 
of  the  slain  "  (Num.  xxiii.  24).  Compare  also  the  passage  in 
Micah  V.  8,  which  was  evidently  in  the  prophet's  mind.  The 
figure  of  eating  up  one's  enemies  as  a  lion  is  used  in  Dcut. 
vii.  16  ;  while  in  other  places  foes  are  compared  to  broad  eaten 
and  devoured  (Num.  xiv.  9  ;  Ps.  xiv.  4).  The  figure  of  drinking 
the  blood  of  one's  enemies  is  found  in  Ezck.  xxxix.  17-16 
(compare,  though  not  exactly  alike,  Deut.  xxxii.  42;  Isa.  i.  20, 
xxxiv.  5,  6  ;  Jer.  xlvi.  10).  The  idea  of  actually  drinking 
blood  was  repugnant  to  the  Jewish  religion,  and  condemned 
in  both  the  law  and  the  prophets  ;  but  when  nations  are  com- 


Ch.  ix.  15]  THE   COMING   OF   THE   KING.  259 

pared  to  wild  animals,  language  must  be  used  characteristic  of 
the  habits  and  usages  of  such  animals.  The  idea  is  further 
carried  out  when  the  warriors  are  described  at  the  close 
of  the  verse  as  raging  like  men  drunk  with  wine,  the  drink 
with  which  they  were  made  drunk  being  the  blood  of  the 
enemies  of  the  Lord.  With  this  blood  the  Israelites  were  to 
be  filled  like  the  sacrificial  bowls  in  which  the  priests  were 
wont  to  catch  the  blood  of  the  victims  which  were  slain,  and 
they  would  be  sprinkled  therewith  like  the  corners  of  the  altar, 
which  expression  includes  the  horns  of  the  altar ;  which  were 
wont  to  be  sprinkled  with  the  sacrificial  blood.  Comp.  Lev. 
i.  5,  II,  iii.  2,  V.  9,  and  in  reference  to  the  horns,  more  especi- 
ally. Lev.  iv.  7,  18,  30.1 

The  reference  made  in  the  passage  (verse  15)  to  sling 
stones  can  scarcely  be  "  they  shall  subdue  with  sling  stones  " 
(as  our  Authorised  Version,  following  the  authority  of  the 
LXX.  and  Vulgate,  Grotius,  etc.),  that  is,  overcome  their 
enemies,  as  David  did  Goliath  of  Gath,  with  the  most  con- 
temptible weapons.     Nor  can  the  sling  stones  be  regarded  as 

^  The  latter  image,  however,  can  scarcely  signify,  as  Dr.  Pusey  thinks  :  "  They 
shall  be  consecrated  instruments  of  God  ;  they  shall  not  prevail  for  themselves, 
but  for  him  ;  they  shall  be  hallowed  like  the  bowls  of  the  temple,  from  whence 
the  sacrificial  blood  is  sprinkled  on  the  altar,  or  as  the  corners  of  the  altar  which 
receive  it."  The  similar  figures  used  here  and  in  ch.  xi.  9,  16,  tend  to  prove  unity  of 
authorship.  Ghillany,  in  his  treatise  on  Die  Menschenopfer  der  alien  Hebraer 
(Nurnberg,  1842),  has  explained  Zech.  ix.  7  (p.  631),  to  allude  to  human  sacrifices 
among  the  Philistines.  No  evidence  whatever  can  be  adduced  in  support  of  such 
an  exposition  ;  though  human  sacrifices,  and  even  the  drinking  of  human  blood 
on  occasions,  existed  among  the  Phoenicians.  Zech.  ix.  15  is  adduced  by  the  same 
scholar  (p.  640,  ff.)  as  if  the  prophet  "in  his  dreams  of  victory  let  us  have  an  insight 
into  the  barbarism  of  the  victorious  Hebrews,"  who  in  ancient  times  ate  their 
fallen  foes  as  food,  and  drank  of  their  blood  in  the  rage  of  victory,  as  well  as  par- 
took of  portions  of  their  bodies  !  In  support  of  this  idea  he  refers  to  Isa.  xlix. 
26  ;  Jer.  v.  17,  xiii.  16  ;  Micah  iii.  i  ;  and  some  of  the  passages  alluded  to  above. 
He  admits,  indeed,  that  in  these  passages  the  eating  of  men  is  only  figuratively 
spoken  of,  but  thinks  that  such  figurative  language  had  its  foundation  in  the  bar- 
barism of  former  times.  It  is,  however,  more  natural,  and  in  accordance  with  the 
earliest  mention  of  the  figure,  to  explain  the  passage  as  above.  There  is  reference 
made  in  some  of  these  passages  to  figurative  sacrifices  (comp.  Isa.  xxxiv.  6,  7), 
but  none  whatever  to  cannibal  practices,  which  is  a  far-fetched  idea. 


26o  ZECHARIAII   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.     [Ch.  ix.  15-17. 

meaning  their  enemies^  which  is  the  sense  advocated  by  Heng- 
stenberg,  "  they  shall  overpower  sling  stones,"  their  enemies 
being  so  styled  as  contemptible,  i  Sam.  xxv.  29  is  not  a 
case  in  point.  The  view  of  Umbreit,  Gesenius,  and  Ewald 
is  preferable,  namely,  that  they  would  despise  the  sling  stones 
hurled  against  them,  and  treat  them  as  very  stubble,  treading 
them  under  their  feet  (comp.  Job  xli.  20,  21,  or  verses  28, 
29  in  E.  V.)  Sling  stones  were  no  contemptible  instruments 
of  warfare  (comp.  2  Chron.  xxvi.  14,  15  ;  i  Mace.  vi.  51,  52). 
But  whatever  the  might  and  power  of  their  enemies,  Jahaveh 
Avould  save  his  people  in  that  day  (verse  16),  that  is,  in  the 
long  day  of  warfare,  so  that  the  enemy  should  not  be  able 
to  crush  and  destroy  them.  The  Lord  would  save  and  de- 
liver them  as  a  shepherd  is  wont  to  deliver  his  flock.  While 
the  Israelites  would  tread  under  their  feet  the  stones  hurled 
against  them  by  their  foes,  they  themselves  should  be  as  the 
stones  of  a  diadem  shining  forth  in  the  land  of  Jahaveh,^  for 
the  land  in  which  the  people  of  Jahaveh  should  dwell,  and  in 
which  they  should  thus  war  a  good  warfare  for  his  truth, 
was  in  very  deed  entitled  to  that  appellation.  Comp.  Isa. 
viii.  8,  though  a  different  word  for  "  land  "  is  there  made  use 
of. 

The  prophet  closes  with  an  allusion  to  the  glory  of  the 
people  of  Israel  at  the  great  crisis  in  their  history  to  which 

^  niDDI^riD  is  the  part,  hithpoel  (Ges.  §  67,  8),  from  the  root  DD3  in  the  sense 
of  trembling,  vibrating,  hence  gleaming,  glittering.  The  idea  of  rising  up  given 
by  Hengstenberg  is  scarcely  suitable  to  stones.  Miihlau  and  Volck  have  adopted 
this  explanation  from  Kohler.  Fiirst's  explanation  is  very  similar.  The  LXX. 
have  5t6Tt  \iOoi.  HyLoi  KvXiovrai.  iirl  yyjs  avroO,  because  holy  stones  are  thrown  upon 
his  laytd,  which  must  be  regarded  as  a  free  translation.  The  Syr.  also  render 
"holy  stones,"  and  render  the  last  clause  by  "which  are  hurled  (thrown)  in  his 
land."  The  Targum  renders  "for  he  shall  choose  them  as  stones  of  the  ephod, 
and  he  shall  collect  them  into  his  land."  All  these,  as  well  as  the  Vulgate  (lapides 
sancti),  regard  the  expression  "1T3"''33X  to  mean  ^^ holy  stones";  but  1T3  is  also 
used  for  the  diadem  of  a  king  (2  Sam.  i.  10  ;  2  Kings  xi.  12).  Gesenius  in  Thes. 
would  also  render  "lifting  themselves  up  in  his  land,"  i.e.,  rising  up.  The  form 
of  the  verb  is  reflective,  not  passive,  and  therefore  can  scarcely  mean  as  Pusey, 
"  a  consecrated  diadem,  raised  aloft  so  that  all  can  see." 


Ch.  ix.  15-17.]  THE   COMING   OF   THE   KING.  261 

the  prophecy  refers  :  "  For  how  great  is  his  beauty,  and  how- 
great  is  his  goodness."  ^  Israel  shall  yet  take  root  in  the  land, 
"  his  branches  shall  spread,  and  his  beauty  shall  be  as  the 
olive  tree,  and  his  smell  as  Lebanon  "  (Hos.  xiv.  6).  It  would 
certainly  be  natural  (more  natural,  if  strict  grammar  alone 
were  regarded)  to  consider  the  beauty  and  goodness  of  Ja- 
haveh  himself  to  be  referred  to  by  the  prophet,  as  Heng- 
stenberg,  Ewald,  and  others  think.  But  the  Old  Testa- 
ment writers  are  not  unfrequently  wanting  in  precision  of 
language,  and  leave  much  to  be  understood  from  the 
general  sense  of  the  context.  Beauty,  as  Kohler  observes, 
is  never  ascribed  to  Jahaveh  himself  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  the  expression  must  be  regarded  as  peculiarly  strange 
when  applied  to  God,  though  beauty  (as  Keil  notes)  is  cer- 
tainly predicted  of  the  Messianic  King  (Ps.  xlv.  3  ;  Isa. 
xxxiii.  17). 

The  prophet  further  adds,  that  in  this  day  of  Israel's  sal- 
vation and  Israel's  dignity,  when  the  old  heroic  spirit  in 
connection  with  valour  for  truth,  should  once  more  be  dis- 
played, the  abundance  of  corn  and  wine  in  the  land  should 
produce  a  multitude  of  young  men  and  maidens.  Whenever 
an  abundance  of  food  exists,  the  population,  as  Hengsten- 
berg  has  remarked,  is  sure  to  increase.  A  similar  idea  is 
found  in  Ps.  Ixxii.  16.  The  mention  of  young  men  and 
maidens  merely  heightens  the  general  picture  of  prosperity 
given  by  the  prophet,  and  may  be  compared  to  that  pre- 
sented in  the  earlier  portion  of  the  book,  where  the  boys  and 

^  The  goodness  referred  to  here  is  not  moral  goodness,  but  the  goodness  of 
external  form  and  appearance;  as  in  the  phrase  "upon  her  fair  neck"  3-1t3"7y 
n"lX3^*  in  Hos.  X.  II  ;  Exod.  ii.  2,  where  I'lti  is  fair  of  a  babe;  i  Sam.ix.  2, 
goodly,  of  a  young  man.  See  also  Num.  xxiv.  5,  and  comp.  Cant.  vii.  2.  LXX. 
strangely  %ri  e'i  ti  dyadbv  avTov,  koL  e'i  tl  KoKhv  aiirov,  ctItos  peauia-KOts,  Kal  ohos 
evwSid^uv  els  irapOevovs.  The  Syr.  is  "how  good  and  how  useful  is  corn  to  the 
youths,  and  wine  delights  the  virgins."  But  the  Targ.  allegorises  here  as  often, 
"  for  how  good  and  how  fair  is  the  instruction  (doctrine)  of  the  Law  to  the 
leaders,  and  the  judgment  of  truth  directed  in  the  congregation. 


262  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.     [Ch.  ix.  15-17. 

girls  are   spoken   of  as  playing   in    the   streets  of  Jerusalem 
(chap.  viii.  5). 

We  must  here  also  express  our  dissent  from  Dr.  Pusey's 
comment  on  these  verses,  in  which  he  considers  the  glory  of 
the  Redeemer  to  be  pointed  out.  Dr.  Pusey  even  spiritualizes 
the  mention  which  is  here  made  of  "  young  men  and  maids." 
Equally  mistaken  is  the  unwise  attempt  made  by  some  to 
refer  the  passage  to  millennial  glories.  The  expressions  which 
are  used  by  the  prophet  simply  refer  to  a  considerable 
amount  of  prosperity  promised  to  the  Jewish  people  at  the 
special  era  which  the  prophecy  depicts,  and  the  measure  of 
blessing  vouchsafed  to  that  nation  in  and  after  the  IMacca- 
bean  period  fully  meets  all  the  requirements  of  the  prophecy. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


THE  WAR  OF  THE  SONS  OF  ZION. 
''THE  LOST  TRIBES." 


CONTENTS. 


Opinions  concerning  Zech.  x. ,  265 — Prayers  for  rain,  266 — Such  blessings  to  be 
sought  only  from  God,  267 — The  teraphim.  Different  opinions  regarding  tera- 
phim,  267,  ff. — The  diviners,  268 — Such  sin  a  cause  of  the  captivity,  269 — The 
evil  shepherds  and  God's  anger  against  them,  270 — Different  explanations,  271 — 
Different  explanations  of  chap.  x.  4,  272-275 — The  triumphant  Jews,  275 — 
Ephraim  and  Judah,  276 — Both  partakers  in  the  struggle,  277 — Jahaveh's  hissing 
for  the  scattered  people,  278 — The  "ten  tribes"  invited  to  return,  279 — Different 
accounts  of  the  number  of  Jews  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel,  278 — The  unas- 
signed  exiles,  280 — Explained  as  the  members  of  the  "  ten  tribes,"  280,  ff. — State- 
ment of  Josephus,  281 — of  4th  Ezra,  281 — The  Anglo-Saxon  race  not  Israelitic, 
281,  note. — Union  of  the  tribes,  282-288 —Genealogies  fragmentary,  283 — The 
exiles  mentioned  in  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  not  the  only  ones  who  returned,  284 
— The  "  Lost  tribes  "  a  myth,  284 — Traces  of  Israelites,  284 — The  twelve  tribes, 
285 — SowTi  among  the  nations,  different  views,  285,  ff. — Blessings  given  to  the 
Israelites,  288,  ff. — Argument  from  mention  of  Assyria  in  verse  10,  289 — Assyria 
and  Babylon,  290 — Assyria  and  Eg}'pt,  291 — Explanation  of  mention  of  Egypt, 
291,  note,  292 — The  land  of  Gilead  and  Lcl:)anon,  293 — Solution  of  difiiculty,  293 
— Difficulties  connected  with  verse  il,  294 — The  Deliverances  of  the  past  the 
symbols  of  the  future,  296. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  WAR   OF   THE   SONS   OF   ZION. — "  THE  LOST  TRIBES." 

The  tenth  chapter  of  Zechariah  has  been  regarded  by  some 
as  being  in  itself  a  separate  and  distinct  prophecy  rather 
than  a  continuation  of  the  ninth  chapter.  Such  is  the  view 
advocated  by  Bleek,  But  on  account  of  the  reference  to  the 
fertility  of  the  land,  at  the  close  of  the  former  chapter,  and  to 
the  result  of  that  fertility  as  seen  in  the  increase  of  young 
men  and  maidens,  it  seems  more  natural  to  connect  the  open- 
ing section  of  this  chapter  (x.  i,  2)  with  the  closing  portion 
of  the  ninth.  For  these  verses  contain  a  direction  to  seek 
from  Jahaveh  the  necessary  showers  required  at  the  season  of 
the  latter  rain,  in  order  that  the  land  might  be  fertile,  because 
it  is  God  alone  who  makes  the  lightnings,  and  gives  the 
abundant  rain.  Such  blessings  of  nature  were  not  to  be 
sought  for  by  a  use  of  the  enchantments  of  the  heathen, 
to  which  too  many  had  recourse  even  in  days  when  the  people 
of  Israel  worshipped  the  true  God,  and  had  not  fallen  into 
the  idolatrous  practices  of  the  heathen  nations  around. 

The  Hebrew  punctuators  held  evidently  similar  views  with 
regard  to  the  connection  of  these  two  opening  verses  with 
the  preceding  prophecy.  For  the  section  marked  by  them  as 
beginning  at  chap.  ix.  9  closes  with  the  two  opening  verses  of 
chap.  X,  Ewald,  also,  considers  that  the  last  verse  of  the  ninth 
chapter  is  to  be  connected  with  chap,  x.,  and  chaps,  ix.  and  x. 
are  regarded  by  him  as  forming  essentially  one  prophecy, 
which  he  subdivides  into  four  almost  equal  sections.  These 
opening  verses,  however,  can  scarcely  be  viewed  as  forming  a 
suitable  close  of  the  former  chapter.     For  if  they  be  connected 


266  ZFXIIARIAH   AND   HIS   rROrilECIES.  [Ch.  x.  i. 

in  their  subject-matter  with  the  verses  at  the  close  of  that 
chapter,  they  are  as  intimately  connected  with  the  verses 
which  follow  in  this.  The  second  verse  speaks  of  the  afflic- 
tion of  the  people  which  was  occasioned  by  there  being  no 
true  shepherd,  and  the  foreign  shepherds  who  ruled  over 
the  people  are  denounced  in  the  following  verse.  We  are 
therefore  inclined  to  follow  the  opinion  of  the  punctuators, 
and  to  regard  the  third  verse  as  commencing  a  new  section 
or  paragraph,  though  that  section  is  an  integral  portion  of 
the  preceding  prophecy. 

The  directions  to  seek  in  the  time  of  the  latter  rain  for  the 
promised  blessing  of  showers,  so  essential  in  order  that  the  earth 
might  bring  forth  her  fruit  (Deut.  xi.  14,  17  ;  Jer.  iii.  3  ;  Joel 
ii.  23),  was  but  natural,  after  the  results  of  such  a  blessing  had 
been  spoken  of  as  distinctly  conducing  to  the  increase  of  the 
Lord's  people  in  the  Lord's  land.  It  is,  therefore,  best  to 
understand  the  expression  as  used  in  its  literal  signification 
(Kohler),  while  the  prayer  for  rain  may  be  regarded  as  in- 
cluding a  prayer  for  all  other  necessary  blessings.  There  is 
no  need  to  allegorise  the  expressions,  as  Kliefoth  is  inclined 
to  do,  and  to  regard  the  harvest  for  which  the  rain  was  re- 
quired as  being  the  spiritual  harvest  to  appear  at  Messiah's 
advent.  Still  worse  is  it  with  Bishop  Wordsworth,  to  view  the 
former  rain  as  signifying  the  Old  Dispensation,  and  the  latter 
rain  the  New.  The  lightnings  alluded  to  in  this  passage  are 
those  which  usually  precede  the  wished-for  rain  (Jer.  x.  13  ; 
Ps.  cxxxv.  7).  The  result  of  such  copious  showers  would  be 
that  each  man  in  Israel  would  have  grass  in  his  field,  or  a  full 
supply  of  all  those  crops  needed  for  man's  use  (Gen.  i.  29 ;  Ps. 
civ.  14).  The  expression  "grass"  need  not  be  confined  (as 
Hengstenberg  imagines)  to  that  signification,  as  in  Deut.  xi.  15. 

As  the  prophet  spoke  of  the  latter  rain,  and  of  its  value  for 
the  sake  of  the  land  and  the  people  of  Jahaveh,  he  was 
naturally  led,  after  the  example  of  the  prophets  who  pre- 


Ch.  X.  2.]  THE   WAR   OF   THE   SONS   OF   ZION.  267 

ceded  him,  to  urge  the  people  not  to  seek  for  such  temporal 
blessings,  which  were,  indeed,  in  themselves  necessary,  by 
having  recourse  to  the  enchantments  which  their  fathers  had 
too  often  employed  in  such  cases.  The  passage  in  Jer.  xiv.  22, 
"  Are  there  any  among  the  vanities  of  the  Gentiles  that 
can  cause  rain  ?  or  can  the  heavens  give  showers  ?"  seems  to 
have  been  in  Zechariah's  mind  as  he  penned  the  first  verse 
of  this  chapter.  It  was  natural  for  the  prophet  in  connexion 
therewith  to  think  of  the  teraphim,  the  diviners  (comp.  Ezek. 
xiii.  6,  7,  9)  and  their  dreams.  This  mention  made  of  the 
diviners  and  the  teraphim  has  been  considered  by  Bleek  and 
others  to  be  a  proof  that  the  prophecy  is  of  a  date  pre- 
vious to  the  exile,  for  such  superstitions  were  rife  previously 
to  that  event,  and  the  exile  itself  was  a  punishment  for  such 
transgressions  (2  Kings  xxiii.  24 ;  Hos.  iii.  4).  It  is,  how- 
ever, more  probable  that  the  prophet  refers  to  the  transgres- 
sions of  former  days.  No  distinct  reference  is  here  made  to 
idolatry  as  a  sin  common  among  the  people  of  the  prophet's 
own  time.  The  belief  in  diviners  and  in  teraphim,  a  belief 
which  existed  even  in  Israel's  purest  days,  though  always 
opposed  by  the  prophets,  was  one  of  those  beliefs  which 
probably  lingered  long  among  the  people,  just  as  similar 
superstitions  have  frequently  prevailed  among  Christian 
nationalities.  Recent  investigations  have,  at  least,  made  it 
probable  that  traces  of  the  old  idolatrous  practices  exist  to 
the  present  day  among  the  fellaheen  of  Palestine.i  It  can- 
not, therefore,  be  thought  strange  that  a  prophet  of  the 
Restoration  should  casually  refer  to  the  vanity  of  all  such 
superstitions. 

Considerable  uncertainty  still  prevails  with  respect  to  the 
teraphim.      They    have   often   been   thought   to   have    been 

^  See  M.  Clermont-Ganneau's  article  on  "The  Arabs  of  Palestine,"  reprinted 
from  Macmillaii' s  Magazine  in  the  Qitarta-ly  Statement  of  the  Palestine  Explora- 
tion Fund,  for  October,  1875. 


268  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS    TROPHECIES.  [Ch.  x.  2. 

similar  to  the  "lares"  and  "penates"  of  the  Romans.^ 
They  were  certainly  images  which  were  human  in  form 
and  often  as  large  as  life.  Such  were  the  teraphim  placed 
in  David's  bed  by  Michal  in  order  to  deceive  the  messen- 
gers of  Saul  (i  Sam.  xix.  13,  16).  They  were,  however, 
sometimes  smaller,  as  were  those  of  Laban,  which  were  able 
to  be  concealed  by  Rachel  in  the  litter  in  which  she  used 
to  ride  upon  her  camel,  and  upon  which  she  sat  in  her 
tent,  when  she  successfully  pleaded  the  excuse  of  illness  as 
a  reason  for  not  rising  to  salute  her  father  while  he  searched 
the  furniture  of  her  tent  (Gen.  xxxi.  34).  It  is  not  unlikely 
that  the  teraphim  were  originally  actual  human  heads,  though 
in  process  of  time  they  were  formed  of  gold,  silver,  etc.  These 
heads  were  supposed  to  possess  the  power  of  giving  oracular 
responses  (Judg.  xvii.  5,  with  xviii.  5  ;  Ezck.  xxi.  26,  E.  V. 
ver.  21),  and  were  often  used  in  connection  with  magic.^ 
Though  their  use  was  often  forbidden,  and  condemned  as 
sinful,  they  were  yet  again  and  again  found  in  use  among  the 
Israelites  (Gen.  xxxv.  2,  4 ;  i  Sam.  xv.  23  ;  2  Kings  xxiii.  24), 
as  well  as  among  the  more  ignorant  heathen.  Similar  prac- 
tices prevailed  for  centuries  after  the  Christian  era  among 
the  inhabitants  of  the  land  where  Laban  dwelt,  and,  there- 
fore, it  is  not  surprising  to  find  a  prophet  of  the  post-exilian 
period  alluding  to  such  superstitions.'^ 

The  preferable  translation  of  the  next  clause  in  verse  2  is, 
"and  dreams  speak  vanity";  dreams  being  mentioned  here 
as  a  type  of  that  which  is  unreal.*"     The  imperfect  which  is 


'  See  Delitzsch  on  Genesis  (4te  Ausg.),  p.  455,  where  Ihe  analogy  is  pointed  out, 
and  also  Rodiger  in  Gesenius'  Thesaurus. 

*  See  Chwolson,  Die  Ssabier  und  der  Ssabismus,  vol.  ii.,  in  his  Excursus  on 
human  sacrifices  of  the  late  period,  and  on  the  oracular  human  heads,  pp.  142-155. 

^  See  Chwolson,  as  before. 

*  So  the  LXX.  TO.  ivuTTvia  \pev5ri  iXdXovv,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Hengstenberg,  etc. 
Others  refer  it  to  the  diviners,  and  so  the  Vulg.  The  omission  of  the  article  has 
been  considered  to  bean  objection  to  the  former  view.     But  "  dreams  "  may  be 


Ch.  X.  2,  3.]  THE  WAR   OF   THE   SONS   OF   ZION.  269 

used  in  the  original  in  both  the  sentences,  "they  speak 
vanity,"  and  "  they  comfort  in  vain,"  may  possibly  convey  the 
idea  that  the  facts  alluded  to  were  of  frequent  occurrence  even 
in  the  prophet's  own  day  (Kohler).  But  it  must  not  be  for- 
gotten that  these  imperfects  are  preceded  by  perfect  tenses, 
and  that  the  diviners  must  be  considered  as  the  subjects  of 
all  the  three  verbs.  The  imperfects  may  be  used  here  in  a 
future  signification,  of  a  time  succeeding  the  pretended  visions 
referred  to. 

The  perfect  tense  which,  however,  occurs  in  the  next  clause, 
following  as  it  does  after  the  illative  conjunction,  can  scarcely 
be  regarded  with  Maurer  as  used  in  a  present  signification. 
It  stands  out  distinctly  in  contrast  with  the  imperfects  im- 
mediately preceding,  and,  therefore,  may  be  viewed  either  as 
used  in  reference  to  the  future  as  the  prophetic  perfect,  or, 
which  is  more  in  accordance  with  the  contrast,  as  referring  to 
past  time.  "  Therefore,"  because  the  people  followed  lies,  and 
those  that  sought  to  comfort  them  comforted  them  with  vain 
expectations  (comp.  Jer.  vi.  14),  "they  departed  (migrated)  as 
a  flock,!  they  are  afi^icted  (oppressed)  because  there  is  no 
shepherd."  The  allusion  thus  is  to  the  captivity  which 
happened  on  account  of  the  people's  sins,  and  which  was 
partly  sent  as  a  judgment  for  their  superstitious  vanities. 
The  metaphor  of  the  verb  is  taken  from  the  pulling  up  of 
the  stakes  of  a  tent  or  sheepfold.     The  captivity  referred  to 

considered  as  spoken  of  generally,  and  not  with  reference  to  those  of  the  diviners.  It 
is  scarcely  sufficient  to  regard  the  omission  of  the  article  as  employed  simply  for  the 
sake  of  varying  the  expression,  as  Hitzig  imagines.  On  the  other  hand,  the  trans- 
lation of  our  A. v.,  "and  have  told  false  dreams,"  according  to  which  XIEiTI  is 
regarded  as  the  genitive,  though  defended  by  Keil  and  others,  is  contrary  to  the 
Hebrew  accentuation.  Such  expressions  do  not  occur  with  reference  to  dreams. 
mOTTI  may  also  be  considered  as  the  adverbial  accusative,  Ges.  §  118,3,  "As 
to  dreams,  they  (the  diviners)  speak  vanity."  On  the  expression  ]1?0nJ''  ?Iin  com- 
pare the  parallel  in  Job  xxi.  34,  and  on  the  subject  matter  see  Jer.  vi.  14. 

^  The  LXX.  have  i^-qpdvOrjcrav,  they  were  dried  up,  which  is  also  the  rendering  of 
Symmachus.  But  Field  notes  that  the  Complutensian,  with  two  MSS.  and  Syro- 
Hex.  read  i^i}pQy]coi.v,  which  Schleusner  approves  ;  Theod.  has  aTfrjpav. 


270  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS    TROPHECIES.  [Ch.  x.  3. 

cannot  be  the  captivity  of  a  portion  of  the  tribe  of  Naphtali, 
etc.  (2  Kings  xv.  29),  as  Maurer  imagines,  nor  even  the 
captivity  of  the  rest  of  the  tribes  of  the  northern  kingdom  of 
Israel,  as  Hitzig  maintains.  For,  as  Kohler  well  observes, 
the  subject  of  the  two  verbs  "they  migrated  "  and  "they  are 
oppressed  "  must  be  the  same,  which  is  sufficient  to  show  that 
the  captivity  of  the  twelve  tribes  as  a  whole  is  referred  to,  as 
Israel  and  Judah  are  alike  addressed  in  the  exhortation  of 
the  first  verse.  The  use  of  the  imperfect  tense  in  the  last 
verb,  "  they  are  oppressed,"  denotes  the  continuance  in  some 
form  of  the  state  of  oppression  down  to  the  days  of  the 
prophet.  The  phrase,  "  for  there  is  no  sheplicrd  "^  seems  to 
intimate  the  total  cessation  of  royalty  among  the  people,  and 
not  merely  the  want  of  a  good  monarch.  Hence  the  view  of 
Hitzig  cannot  be  adopted,  who,  comparing  this  passage  with 
those  in  Hos.  iii.  4,  iv.  3,  and  x.  3,  concludes  that  the  prophecy 
refers  to  the  days  of  the  interregnum  in  the  northern  kingdom. 
The  whole  passage  refers  to  the  state  of  the  people  of  Israel 
in  general,  and  not  to  either  portion  of  it  exclusively. 

The  prophet  having  thus  pictured  the  great  want  under 
which  the  people  groaned,  proceeds  to  declare  that  the  anger 
of  Jahaveh  was  already  kindled  against  the  evil  shepherds 
who  oppressed  his  flock.  By  this  appellation  the  foreign 
rulers  and  oppressors  of  Israel  are  signified,  as  in  Jer.  vi.  3,  4, 
XXV.  34-38,  xlix.  19  (comp.  also  Isa.  xliv.  28).  The  same 
expression  is  also  used  of  native  kings,  priests  and  prophets 
(Jer.  ii.  8,  xvii.  16,  xxiii.  1-4  ;  Ezek.  xxxiv.  2,  etc.).  The 
prophet  further  announces  that  the  Lord  would  visit  in  ven- 
geance "the  he-goats,"  by  which  especially  foreign  chieftains 
or  commanders  appear  to  be  signified  (see  Isa.  xiv.  9,  where 
our  A.  V.  has  rendered  the  expression  by  "  the  chief  ones").  It 
is,  however,  possible  that  the  same  persons  may  be  signified  by 

'  Comp.  Num.  xxvii.  17  ;  l  Kings  xxii.  17  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  4  ;  Ezck.  xxxiv.  5,  S,  23, 
xxxvii.  24.     Comp.  also  the  N.  T.  application  of  the  expression  in  Malt.  i.x.  36. 


Ch.x.  3,  4]  THE   WAR   OF   THE   SONS   OF   ZION.  2/1 

the  "  shepherds "  and  the  "  he-goats,"  for  they  appear  to  be 
identified  in  Ezek.  xxxiv.  as  the  same  persons  viewed  from  a 
different  point  of  view.  But  there  may  be  a  distinction  be- 
tween the  two,  the  former  indicating  the  monarchs  of  the 
nations,  while  "  the  he-goats  "  signify  their  nobles  and  those 
in  high  office.  Hitzig  would  explain  the  "  he-goats,"  after 
the  analogy  of  Ezek.  xxxiv.  i/,  2i,  to  indicate  the  rich  men 
in  Israel,  who  despised  and  oppressed  their  poorer  breth- 
ren. Such  marked  distinctions  between  class  and  class  were, 
however,  scarcely  in  existence  among  the  restored  exiles  in 
the  time  of  Zechariah,  although  the  conduct  of  the  nobles  of 
Judah  became  very  oppressive  in  the  days  of  Nehemiah 
(Neh.  v).  Moreover,  the  passage  cannot  well  be  explained  as 
speaking  of  one  portion  of  the  people  of  Israel  being  punished, 
when,  as  the  next  clause  proves,  the  whole  nation  is  spoken  of 
as  to  be  raised,  by  the  Lord's  gracious  visitation  of  his  flock,^ 
to  higher  dignity  than  before.  Thus  the  house  of  Judah  was 
to  become  the  state-horse  of  Jahaveh  in  the  impending  con- 
flict, that  is,  Jehovah  would  ride  gloriously  forth  on  that 
people  to  war  against  their  foes,  and  would  fill  them  with 
courage  by  guiding  and  directing  them,  so  that  they  would  be 
fitted  for  that  day  of  battle  (comp.  Job  xxxviii.  19,  ff.).  It  is 
worthy  of  note  that  the  house  of  Judah  is  here  spoken  of  as 
the  flock  of  Jahaveh,  though  the  prophecy  is  by  no  means 
confined  to  that  tribe  (see  verses  6,  7,  etc.).  The  language 
seems  to  have  been  chosen  because  that  tribe  was  to  be  pre- 
eminent in  the  day  of  future  conflict,  and  because  the  name 
of  Judah  was  coming  into  use  almost  as  a  designation  for 
Israel  in  general. 

The  verse  that  follows  (verse  4)  has  been  differently  under- 
stood.   "  From   him    proceeds  corner,    from   him    nail,   from 

^  The  distinction  must  be  noticed  between  the  construction  'Z'pV  IpD  which 
is  used  of  visiting  in  judgment,  that  is,  of  punishing  and  chastising,  and 
D"ni<  "IpS,  which  is  used  in  a  good  sense  of  visiting  in  mercy. 


2/2  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  x.  4. 

him  battle-bow,  from  him  every  oppressor  together." 
There  is  no  difficulty  as  to  the  comprehension  of  the 
several  expressions  which  are  made  use  of.  The  corner 
means  the  corner-stone,  and  in  Isa.  xxviii.  16,  this  title 
with  others  is  used  in  reference  to  the  Messiah.  The  word 
translated  "  nail "  may  either  signify  the  peg  with  which 
the  tent  was  fastened  firmly  to  the  ground  (Exod.  xxvii.  19, 
XXXV.  18  ;  Judg.  iv.  21,  22),  or  a  peg  or  nail  driven  into 
a  wall  (Ezek.  xv.  3)  on  which  various  articles  were  hung. 
In  this  latter  signification  the  term  is  used  figuratively  of 
persons  upon  whom  others  are  dependent  (Isa.  xxii.  23-25). 
The  "  battle-bow  "  needs  no  explanation,  for  it  is  evidently 
used  in  the  signification  of  an  archer  or  warrior.  ^  But 
the  last  expression,  "  every  oppressor,"  has  been  variously 
explained.  The  signification  of  commander  {Feldherr), 
assigned  to  it  by  Hitzig,  cannot  be  regarded  as  proven. 
The  cognate  word  in  Ethiopic,  A^cgiis,  is  employed  in  the 
sense  of  king,  and  it  has  been  supposed  that  the  word 
is  used  in  this  signification  in  this  passage  of  Zechariah 
(so  the  Targum),  as  well  as  in  Isa.  iii.  12,  xiv.  2,  and  Ix.  17. 
None   of  these   passages    are  at  all  conclusive,   as  the   idea 

*  Kliefoth  is  scarcely  correct  in  considering  tliat  the  passage  speaks  of  the  full 
preparation  of  Judah  for  warfare  at  the  time  referred  to.  Explaining  each  word 
on  the  principle  of  a  part  for  the  whole,  Kliefoth  interprets  "  the  corner-stone"  to 
indicate  the  walls  or  fortifications;  the  "tent  peg"  to  denote  the  camp;  the 
"  battle-bow,"  warlike  weapons  of  offence  in  general.  All  these,  according  to  his 
view,  are  included  in  the  last  phrase  nn"*  L*'J"I3"?D,  which  he  translates  "all  which 
rules,"  that  is  everything  which  helps  to  bring  the  foe  into  the  position  of  a  slave 
under  the  lash  of  a  driver.  But  this  explanation  of  the  first  three  nouns  is  fanciful, 
while  that  of  the  last  is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  usus  loqitcudi.  Nor  can  we 
regard  Lange  as  really  giving  the  real  sense  of  the  passage  when  he  maintains  that 
the  four  terms  are  expressions  denoting  the  leaders  of  the  people,  two  of  them 
indicating  the  leaders  required  for  war,  and  the  other  two  the  leaders  in  days  of 
peace.  According  to  him,  the  corner-stone  denotes  the  fixed  and  established 
government,  and  the  tent  peg,  those  who  take  charge  of  all  who  travel,  while  the 
battle-bow  is  supposed  to  indicate  the  regular  leaders  on  the  battle-field,  and  the 
"  assaulter,"  or  "  oppressor,"  the  man  who  breaks  through  the  hostile  line  of  battle. 
Such  an  exposition  has,  in  our  opinion,  nothing  to  recommend  it,  while  the  ex- 
planation of  the  last  term  is  also  against  the  usus  loqucndi. 


Ch.  X.  4.]  THE   WAR   OF   THE   SONS   OF   ZION.  273 

of  despotic  treatment  seems  to  pervade  them  all  (see 
Delitzsch  on  the  passages  in  Isaiah).  The  verb  occurs  so 
frequently  in  the  meaning  of  driving,  oppressing,  that  the 
participle  is  most  naturally  explained  as  having  that  sig- 
nification. Hengstenberg  and  Keil  explain  it  in  that  sense, 
but  consider  that  the  reference  in  this  passage  is  to  the 
oppression  to  be  exercised  by  the  people  of  the  covenant  on 
those  who  had  oppressed  them.  The  passage  would  thus 
form  a  contrast  to  chap.  ix.  8.  Hengstenberg  regards  the 
passage  as  stating  that  the  Jews,  by  the  blessing  of  God, 
would  ultimately  obtain  rulers  of  their  own,  and  again 
exercise  military  power,  instead  of  being  in  subjection  to 
other  nations.  This  does  not  appear  to  us  the  natural  ex- 
planation of  this  passage.  According  to  the  latter  interpre- 
tation the  pronoun  "  from  him,"  must  be  referred  to  Judah, 
in  which  reference  Neumann,  Kliefoth,  and  Keil  agree  with 
Hengstenberg. 

Keil  maintains  that  the  words  "to  go  forth  from"  are  quite 
decisive  against  the  reference  of  the  pronouns  in  this  verse 
to  Jahaveh  ;  for,  he  argues,  while  one  might  well  use  the 
expressions  that  Judah  would  receive  its  firm  foundations, 
its  inward  fortification,  and  its  strength  for  war  from  Jaha- 
veh, the  statement  that  every  warlike  leader  was  to  come 
forth  from  Jahaveh  is  without  parallel.  It  is  not  even  once 
said  of  the  Messiah  in  the  Old  Testament  that  he  was 
to  come  forth  from  God,  although  his  "goings  forth" 
(Mic.  V.  i)  are  from  eternity,  and  he  is  styled  "the  mighty 
God  "  (Isa.  ix.  5).  Still  less  can  such  an  expression  be  used 
of  every  ruler  of  Judah.  But  it  may  well  be  replied  to 
Keil  that  the  expression  ''  to  go  forth  from'''  is  not  used  in 
the  sense  to  which  he  objects.  It  merely  signifies  that 
all  such  powers,  whether  for  good  or  ill,  actually  proceed 
from  God.  The  same  expression  is  used  of  "  the  four 
chariots  "    described  as  "  going  forth  "  from  standing  before 

T 


2/4  •  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  x.  4,  5. 

Jahavch  in  the  seventh  vision  (chap.  vi.  5).  The  angel  of 
Jahaveh  was  also  said  "  to  go  forth,"  evidently  from 
Jahaveh  (though  that  is  not  expressly  stated)  to  destroy 
the  hosts  of  the  king  of  Assyria  (2  Kings  xix.  35).  The  evil 
spirit  likewise  "went  forth  from"  Jahaveh's  presence  to 
seduce  Ahab  to  his  ruin  at  Ramoth-Gilead  (i  Kings  xxii. 
21,  22).  Numerous  other  instances  could  be  cited.  The 
phrase  is  simply  used  in  the  sense  of  proceed  from  (comp. 
Mic.  v.  i),  and  Hitzig  is  right  in  referring  to  such  passages 
as  Isa.  i.  26,  in  order  to  show  that  all  good  rulers  proceed 
from  the  Lord  (comp.  also  Isa.  xli.  2).  The  idea  of  a 
local  "  going  forth  from  "  is  utterly  foreign  to  the  passage. 
The  expressions  "  corner,"  "  nail,"  "  battle-bow,"  as  well  as 
"oppressor,"  are  all  used  metaphorically  to  denote  persons, 
and,  therefore,  there  is  no  impropriety  whatever  in  regarding 
all  these  nouns  as  the  subject  of  the  verb  "go  forth." 
Hitzig  is  right  also  in  maintaining  that  the  pronouns  repeated 
for  emphasis  can  only  refer  to  Jahaveh.  His  reference  to 
Hos.  viii.  4,  where  the  pronoun  of  the  first  person  with 
the  same  preposition  is  used  in  a  similar  sense,  is  quite 
defensible.  ^  Kohler,  in  support  of  the  same  reference  of 
the  pronoun,  notes  that  the  3rd  pers.  sing,  suffix  (-I^JS^) 
stands  in  this  passage  in  such  close  proximity  to  the  suffix 
of  the  3rd  pers.  used  in  the  previous  verse  (n*in),  that 
it  can  scarcely  refer  to  Judah.  For  "Judah"  is  treated  as 
a  plural  and  construed  with  the  verb  in  the  3rd  pers.  plural 
in  the  verse  following,  and  the  pronominal  suffix  of  the 
3rd  pers.  plural  is  used  also  with  reference  to  "  Judah  "  in 
the  last  clause  of  verse  3.  It  would  be  doing  violence, 
therefore,  to  the  syntax,  without  any  necessity  whatever,  to 
refer  the  pronoun  of  the  3rd  pers.  singular,  which  occurs 
in  this  verse,  to  any  other  than  to  Jahaveh,  The  expression 
"together"    (nfT)   at  the  close  of  the  verse  refers  to  "the 

'  Compare  the  use  of  JP,  tliough  the  passage  be  prccalive,  in  Gen.  xlix.  24,  25. 


Ch.  X.  4,  5]  THE   WAR   OF   THE   SONS   OF   ZION.  2/5 

oppressor,"  and  indicates  that  more  than  one  single  op- 
pressor is  referred  to.  The  sense  is  that  each  of  such  op- 
pressors, and  all  of  them  together,  viewed  as  a  whole,  are  to 
be  regarded  as  directly  sent  from  Jahaveh,  who,  however, 
had  resolved  to  visit  in  mercy  his  people,  and  to  comfort 
them  after  their  past  days  of  sorrow. 

The  sense  put  upon  the  passage  by  Pusey  must  be  re- 
garded as  incorrect.  He  explains  the  former  clause  of  the 
passage  as  equivalent  to  the  prophecy  in  Jeremiah  (xxx.  2i), 
"  their  nobles  shall  be  of  themselves,  and  their  governor 
shall  proceed  from  the  midst  of  them,"  which  would  be 
perfectly  admissible,  except  for  the  reasons  mentioned 
above  ;  and  then,  as  if  the  second  clause  of  the  verse  was 
not  to  be  explained  homogeneously  with  the  first  clause, 
he  interprets  it  to  mean  '^  from  it  (Judah)  sliall  go  forth  every 
oppressor  togetJier  ;  one  and  all,  as  we  say,  a  toniustd pele-mele 
body."  1  The  explanation  also  given  by  Dr.  Pusey,  Bishop 
Wordsworth,  and  others,  of  the  expressions  "  corner-stone" 
and  "  nail,"  as  here  referring  to  the  Messiah,  which  is  also  sup- 
ported by  the  Targum,  cannot  be  defended  on  any  rational 
principles  of  exegesis.  The  Targum,  however,  it  ought  to 
be  noted,  correctly  refers  the  pronoun  to  Jahaveh. 

The  picture  of  the  triumphant  Jews  given  in  the  fifth 
verse  forms  a  parallel  to  that  in  chap.  ix.  14-16,  "and  they 
shall  be  (proph.  perf)  like  heroes  treading  upon  mire  (or 
treading  upon  their  enemies  in  the  mire,  see  crit.  comm.)  of 
the  streets,  in  the  war,  and  they  shall  fight,  for  Jahaveh  is 
with  them,  and  riders  upon  horses  shall  be  ashamed."     The 


*  Still  worse  is  the  exposition  of  Mr.  Chamberlain  {The  National  Restoration 
and  Conversion  of  the  Twelve  Tribes  of  Israel,  London  :  Wertheim  &  Macin- 
tosh, 1854),  who  argues  at  length  that  "  Palestine  has  ever  been,  and  will  be, 
until  this  prophecy  is  fulfilled,  the  land  of  strongholds,  and  battlements,  and 
munitions  of  war,  and  oppressors.  But  Zechariah  predicts  a  time  yet  to  come 
when  all  these  will  come  out  of  Judah  together,"  or,  as  he  explains  it,  will  cease 
to  exist  for  ever. 


276  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  x.  4-6. 

difference  of  opinion  which  exists  in  respect  to  the  translation 
of  the  first  clause  is  of  no  moment  as  regards  the  general 
import  of  the  passage,  which  sets  forth  the  spirit  and  energy 
of  the  warriors.  Their  success  would  be  certain,  since  Jahaveh 
was  with  them,  and  would  infuse  into  them  such  a  martial 
spirit  that  even  the  cavalry  of  the  enemy  should  be  worsted  in 
the  encounter.  The  scene  is  a  vivid  picture  of  the  Maccabean 
times,  in  which  the  Jews  met  with  remarkable  success, 
"  turning  to  flight  the  armies  of  the  aliens,"  though  they 
were  strong  in  cavalry,  which  formed  the  most  powerful 
portion  of  the  armies  of  the  Greeks.  Sec  i  Mace.  iii.  39, 
iv.  7,  31,  vi.  30,  35,  ix.  4,  II,  X.  n,  77,  ^^-  I3>  etc. 

The  promises  set  forth  in  the  fifth  verse  are  all  described 
in  the  prophetic  perfect  ;  the  construction  that  is  used  in  the 
verse  following  is  that  of  the  perfect  with  the  vav  con- 
versive  followed  by  the  imperfect.  The  latter  construction 
is  used  to  indicate  emphasis,  and  to  express  the  intimate  con- 
nexion of  the  thing  promised  Avith  what  has  been  already 
spoken  of  The  house  of  Joseph  was  not  to  be  forgotten, 
since  Ephraim  and  Judah  formed  essential  parts  of  one  great 
whole.  If  Judah  was  to  be  made  the  majestic  war-horse 
ridden  by  Jahaveh  to  victory,  the  prophet  does  not  forget 
to  note  that  the  divine  blessings  were  not  merely  to  be 
bestowed  upon  that  portion  of  the  covenant  people.  Both 
portions  alike  should  have  a  blessing  ;  therefore  the  promise 
proceeds, "  And,"  or  "  so,  I  will  strengthen  the  house  of  Judah, 
and  the  house  of  Joseph  will  I  save,  and  I  will  bring  them 
back,"  or,  "  I  will  cause  them  to  dwell,"  scil.  in  safety  (as  Jer. 
xxxii.  37),  or,  "  I  will  place  them,"  ^  scil.  in  their  own  homes 

*  The  reason  of  this  uncertainty  of  translation  is  that  the  verbal  form  which 
occurs  here,  C'rif^t^'ln,  may  he  explained  in  two  ways.  First  as  an  irregular 
hiphil  from  3tJ'^,  for  D*ri3L""(n  (IIos.  xi.  11),  which  latter  is  actually  the  reading 
of  some  MSS.  The  form  is  a  mixed  one,  and  partakes  of  the  peculiarities  of  both 
verbs  v'2,  and  IT.  In  this  case  the  copyist  had  probably  the  similar  form 
D''rn3''C*in  in  his  mind.     See  Ges.  Lchrg.,  p.  464,  Olshauscn,  §  225  c.     This  is  the 


Ch.  X.  6,  7.]  THE   WAR   OF   THE   SONS   OF   ZION.  277 

(as  Hos.  xi.  11).  The  salvation  of  Ephraim  is  not,  however, 
stated  to  be  brought  about  by  Judah.  Whatever  translation 
of  the  verb  be  preferred,  the  pronoun  must  be  taken  to  relate 
to  the  two  parts  of  the  covenant  people.  To  both  the  words 
refer :  "  for  I  have  compassion  upon  them,  and  they  shall  be 
(both  verbs  are  prophetic  perfects)  as  if  I  had  not  loathed 
them,  for  I  am  Jahaveh  their  God,  and  I  will  hear  them  " 
(compare  chap.  xiii.  9  ;  Isa.  Iviii.  9)  ;  namely,  when  they 
call  upon  me  for  aid  in  their  distresses,  though  the  latter 
idea  is  not  exactly  stated  in  words. 

Ephraim  is  spoken  of  in  this  connection  with  Judah,  not 
as  indicating  that  the  members  of  the  other  tribes  would 
rejoice  at  Judah's  victory,  and  at  the  Lord's  compassion 
vouchsafed  to  the  nation  in  general,  while  they  should  have 
no  share  in  the  previous  struggle.  The  very  opposite  is 
rather  the  case.  That  which  was  affirmed  of  Judah  in  the 
former  chapter  (verse  15)  is  here  also  affirmed  of  Ephraim. 
The  Ephraimites  would  not  be  excluded  from  any  of  the 
blessings  promised,  but  would  have  their  part  in  the  contest, 
as  well  as  rejoice  in  the  victory.  "  Ephraim,  therefore,  shall 
be  as  a  hero,  and  their  heart  shall  rejoice  as  with  wine,  and 
their  children  and  their  sons  shall  see  it  and  be  glad  ;  let 
their  heart  rejoice  in  Jahaveh."^     They  would  be  made  strong 

view  taken  by  the  LXX.,  Maurer,  Hengst.,  Bleek,  etc.  Secondly  the  word 
also  may  be  regarded  as  an  irregular  hiphil  from  31E^',  which  is  the  opinion 
adopted  by  the  Vulg.,  Targ.,  and  Syr.,  and  supported  by  Ewald,  §  196  b,  note,  as 
well  as  in  his  remarks  on  this  passage  in  his  Proph.  d.  A.  B.  Both  views  are 
equally  admissible  ;  see  Bottcher's  Lehrb.,  §  466,  4  ;  Kalisch,  §  Ixvii.  A.  3,  e.  3. 
Possibly  the  word  was  so  pointed  to  indicate  an  original  difference  of  reading. 
In  Jer.  xxxii.  37  the  two  regular  forms  from  the  two  verbs  occur  almost  side  by 
side  in  the  same  passage,  which  may  have  floated  before  the  mind  of  the  prophet. 
Double  punctuations,  as  well  as  double  accentuations,  occur  in  the  Decalogue 
(Exod.  XX.  3,  13  ;  Deut.  v.  7,  17),  and  have  been  supposed  to  indicate  an  ad- 
missible difference  of  reading.  See  Olshausen,  §  37  b.  But  see  Delitzsch's 
article  "  Dekalog  "  in  the  new  edition  of  Herzog's  Rcal-encyclopiidic.  Hitzig  prefers 
to  read  D''rihti'n  "I  will  bring  them  back,"  which  he  thinks  more  suited  to  the 
context. 
'  This  is  one  of  the  instances  often  cited  as  a  case  in  which  the  jussive  is  used 


2/8  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  x.  7,  8. 

strong  as  heroes  to  fight  in  the  common  cause ;  and,  in- 
vigorated as  a  giant  refreshed  with  wine,  they  would  fight 
the  battle  of  their  common  Lord  (comp.  Ps.  Ixxviii.  65,  66). 
Their  joy  in  the  fight  would  communicate  itself  to  their 
children,  and  all  would  rejoice  together  because  God  was 
with  them  of  a  truth. 

The  prophet  further  declares  God's  goodwill  towards 
these  lost  ones  of  the  house  of  Israel.  "  I  will  hiss  for  them 
(the  sense  of  the  Hebrew  form  of  the  verb  can  best  be 
expressed  in  English  by  a  slight  emphasis),  and  I  will 
gather  them,  for  I  have  redeemed  them  " ;  their  liberty  was 
decreed  already  by  God,  hence  the  perfect  tense  ;  "  and 
they  multiply  as  they  multiply."  ^  The  words  are  best 
understood  to  refer  to  both  parts  of  the  nation,  though  more 
especially  used  with  respect  to  Ephraim.  Numbers  of  Jews, 
as  well  as  Israelites,  were  still  scattered  throughout  the  lands 
of  the  Gentiles.  The  Lord  promised  to  hiss  for  these,  that 
is,  call  them  loudly  as  with  a  pipe,  in  order  to  bring 
them    back   to   their   own    land.-      Such   signals   God  gave 

in  Ihe  sense  of  the  imperfect.  But  the  jussive  probably  retains  its  ordinary  signifi- 
cation even  here,  and  is  used  to  express  the  sympathy  which  the  prophet  feh  in 
the  scene  which  he  depicts.  See  Driver's  Hebrew  Tenses,  §  58.  Kohler  explains 
the  jussive  as  used  here  rather  in  reference  to  the  purpose  of  Jahaveh  himself. 

1  This  last  clause  of  the  verse  has  been  explained  by  Kohler,  Keil,  and  others,  as 
containing  an  allusion  to  the  increase  of  population  once  granted  to  Israel  in 
Egypt  (Exod.  1.  7,  12).  In  such  a  case  the  first  perfect  here  used  in  the  phrase 
•m  ID?  -I^ll  must  be  regarded  as  a  prophetic  perfect,  and  the  clause  be  rendered, 
"  and  ihey  sliall  increase  as  they  have  increased"  (A.V.),  or  "were  increased." 
If  such  were  the  intention  of  the  prophet  we  would  rather  have  expected  an  im- 
perfect in  the  first  clause.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  the  copula  here  is  the  vav 
consecutive,  or  conversive  (as  Kuhlcr  thinks),  as  the  tone  proves  nothing  in  the 
3rd  pers.  plur.  perf.  in  verbs  H"?.  Hence  it  is  safer  to  explain  the  second  perfect 
as  the  mere  repetition  of  the  first,  and  both  as  used  in  the  same  signification.  The 
passage  is  equivalent  to  "  they  will  be  as  numerous  as  ever  they  wish."  So  Ewald, 
and  also  Delitzsch  [Comm.  iibcr  Genesis,  4te  Ausg.  p.  476).      See  Ewald,  Le/irb., 

§  350  b- 

2  The  allusion  contained  in  the  verb  p1li^'  may,  however,  be  to  the  manner  m 
which  those  in  charge  of  bees  make  a  noise'  in  order  to  induce  the  bees  to  settle 
down  in  a  desired  locality.  Comp.  the  verb  in  Isa.  vii.  18  and  Delitzsch  on 
Is.  V.  26  ;  also  Virgil  Georg.  iv.  54.     It  has  been  suggested  by  the  reader  for  the 


Ch.  X.  7,  8.]  THE   WAR   OF   THE   SONS   OF   ZION.  279 

again  and  again  by  his  gracious  providence  during  the  days 
of  the  prophet,  at  the  period  of  the  disasters  which  came 
upon  Babylon,  by  the  noise  of  the  overthrow  of  the  Persian 
empire,  and  later  by  the  victorious  struggles  of  the  Macca- 
bees. Such  providential  calls  were  again  and  again  re- 
sponded to  by  bands  of  believing  Jews  and  Israelites,  who 
at  various  intervals,  often  widely  separated  from  one  another, 
returned  to  their  own  land. 

A  great  deal  of  confusion  with  respect  to  the  restoration 
which  took  place  in  the  days  of  the  prophet  has  been  created 
by  a  commonly  received  opinion  that  the  ten  tribes  did  not 
share  in  that  restoration,  but  that  the  restoration  to  Palestine, 
the  beginnings  of  which  are  described  in  the  books  of  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah,  was  confined  to  the  members  of  the  tribes  of 
Judah  and  Benjamin  in  general.  This  point  has  already  been 
referred  to  in  chap,  vii.,  and  we  shall  have  occasion  again  to 
recur  to  it.  By  the  terms  of  Cyrus'  decree  the  members  of 
the  ten  tribes  were  as  freely  permitted  as  the  people  of  Judah 
and  Benjamin  to  return  to  the  land  of  their  forefathers.  It 
has,  however,  been  repeatedly  asserted  that  though  a  few 
individuals  of  these  tribes  may  possibly  have  been  found 
among  the  first  bands  of  exiles  who  came  back  to  Palestine, 
no  large  number  of  the  people  of  these  tribes  can  have  re- 
turned with  Zerubbabel.  The  truth  of  this  oft-repeated  as- 
sertion is,  however,  by  no  means  evident.  ^ 

The  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  as  well  as  the  later  book 
known  as  the  3rd  Ezra,  or  ist  Esdras  in  our  Apocrypha, 
agree  in  giving  the  sum  total  of  the  Jews  who  returned 
with  Zerubbabel  as  42,360.  The  number  assigned,  however, 
in  those  three  books,  in  the  detailed  lists  of  the  descendants 
of  those  who  had  been  carried  away  captive  to  Babylon,  when 

press  that  the  reference  may  be  to  some  such  sound  as  that  used  on  the  Conti- 
nent to  attract  attention,  so  much  like  hissing,  e.gr.,  the  German /j'/'.  The  Greeks 
too,  when  calling  a  companion,  make  a  sound  like  hissing,  ps,  ps. 

^  See  our  remarks  on  p.  243-245  in  connection  with  the  statements  of  chap.  ix.  10. 


280  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.  [  Ch.  x.  8. 

added  together,  by  no  means  make  up  such  a  total.  The 
detailed  numbers  given  in  Ezra  (chap,  ii.)  only  make  up 
29,818.  The  figures  given  in  the  list  found  in  Nehemiah 
(chap,  vii.)  amount  to  a  somewhat  larger  number,  namely  to 
31,089;  while  those  in  3rd  Ezra  (ist  Esdras),  possibly 
derived  in  part  from  another  tradition,  when  added  to- 
gether, according  to  the  several  numbers  given  in  Tischen- 
dorf's  text  (1850)  of  the  LXX.,  only  make  30,143,  a  number 
slightly  in  excess  of  that  given  by  Nehemiah.  Mistakes  are 
very  apt  to  be  made  in  ancient  MSS.  with  respect  to  num- 
bers. The  substantial  agreement,  therefore,  of  these  three 
lists  is  remarkable.  Moreover,  according  to  these  authorities, 
a  very  large  body,  in  proportion  to  the  whole,  consisted  of 
persons  whose  names  were  not  to  be  found  in  the  genealogies 
then  extant,  and  who  could  not  be  definitely  assigned  as 
belonging  to  any  special  portion  of  the  Holy  Land.  And  be 
it  noted  that  this  unassigned  body  of  exiles  amounted  to 
some  11,000  or  12,000,  out  of  a  grand  total  of  42,360.^ 

It  has  been  maintained  as  a  possibility  by  Berthcau, 
Schulz,  and  others,  that  the  statement  of  3rd  Ezra  (ver.  41) 
is  correct,  and  that  the  larger  number  ought  to  be  regarded 
as  that  "  of  Israel  from  them  of  twelve  years  old  and  up- 
ward." The  insertion  of  the  clause,  "  from  them  of  twelve 
years  old  and  upward,"  may  possibly  have  been  designed  to 
explain  the  difference  perceived  to  exist  between  the  sum 
total,  and  the  sum  of  the  various  numbers  assigned  to  the 
different  families.  In  this  case,  the  lesser  numbers  would  be 
those  of  the  persons  from  twenty  years  old  and  upward.  But 
this  attempt  to  explain  the  difference  is  by  no  means  satis- 
factory, nor  is  it  at  all  clear  that  this  was  the  real  intention 
of  the  writer  of  3rd  Ezra.     It  is  more  probable  that  the  view 

^  The  totals,  as  j^iven  by  Michaelis,  whose  statement  has  been  followed  by 
Fritzsche  in  the  Kurzgef.  exeg.  Ilamibuch  zii  den  Apocryphcu,  aie  incorrect ;  the 
correct  sums  are  those  above,  yiven  by  Bcrtheau  in  his  Coiniii,  on  Ezra  and 
Nclicmiak. 


Ch.  X.  8.]  THE   WAR   OF   THE   SONS   OF   ZION.  28 1 

of  Rabbi  Saloino  ben-Yizhak,  and  other  Jewish  commentators, 
is  correct,  namely,  that  the  difference  between  the  grand  total 
and  the  sum  of  the  numbers  given  in  detail  in  the  several 
lists,  was  the  number  of  the  individuals  of  the  ten  tribes  who 
came  up  with  the  families  of  Judah  and  Benjamin,  but  who 
could  not  be  assigned  definitely  to  any  special  cities  in  the 
Holy  Land.  The  number  of  exiles  who  went  to  Jerusalem 
with  Ezra  at  a  later  period  was  far  smaller  than  that  of  the 
first  body  led  by  Zerubbabel ;  but  it  is  deserving  of  note  that 
the  letter  from  Artaxerxes  in  favour  of  the  rebuilding  of  the 
Temple  at  Jerusalem  was  not  only  read  by  Ezra  to  the  Jews 
in  Babylon,  but,  if  we  may  believe  the  testimony  of  Josephus 
{Antiq.  Jud.  xi.  5,  §  2),  was  sent  by  Ezra  to  the  members  of 
the  ten  tribes  who  were  dwelling  in  Media. 

The  statement  which  Josephus  makes  in  the  same  place 
respecting  those  Israelites,  bears  on  its  very  face  the  stamp 
of  improbability.  It  was  evidently  based  on  the  vaguest 
rumour,  and  not  made  from  his  own  actual  knowledge. 
For  Josephus  speaks  of  the  Israelites  as  existing  in  his  own 
day  in  countless  myriads  beyond  the  Euphrates  (fxvpuiSe^ 
airecpoi,  Kol  apiOfiw  jvcoa-dfjvai,  fX7]  Svvd/j,evai).  But  if  they 
had  been  then  in  existence  in  such  numbers,  they  certainly 
would  have  been  taken  notice  of  by  other  writers.  The 
statement  of  Josephus,  as  Evvald  has  suggested,  ^  probably 
had  its  origin  in  the  language  of  the  prophets,  which  men 
were  anxious  to  explain  literally.  The  wild  statements  of 
the  writer  of  4th  Ezra  (2  Esdras  xiii.  39-50)  are,  of  course,  of 
no  value,  except  as  showing,  as  Ewald  observes,  that  in 
the  first  century  after  Christ  a  large  host  of  Israelites  was 
believed  to  exist  in  some  remote  country  situated  in  the 
north-east.  ^ 

^  See  Ewald's  History  of  Israel,  English  Translation,  vol.  v.  pp.  90-96. 

2  The  fanciful  notions  which  every  now  and  then  are  put  forward  by  some 
dreamer  who  imagines  that  he  has  discovered  the  supposed  lost  tribes,  scarcely 
deserve  much  attention.     Isolated  bodies  of  Jews  or  Israelites  may,  no  doubt,  from 


282  ZECIIARIAH   AND    HIS    rROPIIECIES.  [Ch.  x.  is. 

It  is  certain,  however,  as  far  as  our  knowledge  extends, 
that  no  hindrances  were  placed  in  the  way  of  the  return  of 
either  Jews  or  Israelites  to  their  own  land.  While  a  large 
number  of  Jews  did  actually  return,  a  very  considerable 
number  even  of  the  people  belonging  to  the  two  tribes  did 
not  return  up  to  the  time  of  the  prophet  Zechariah.  These 
the  prophet  urged  to  flee  out  of  Babylon,  and  to  them  he 
announced  the  calamities  which  would  fall  upon  that  city 
(chap.  ii.).  We  may  well  believe  that  many  obeyed  the 
directions  of  the  prophet,  though  we  have  no  distinct  his- 
torical notice  of  their  return  to  the  holy  city.  It  must  be 
remembered,  as  already  noticed  (p.  257),  that  the  annals  of 
the  Jews  concerning  that  very  period  present  a  blank  of 
nearly  two  centuries.  The  people  also  of  the  ten  tribes,  like 
their  brethren  the  Jews,  preferred  in  the  majority  of  cases  to 
remain  in  the  lands  where  they  had  settled  for  generations, 
and  which  they  had  learned  from  infancy  to  regard  as  their 
home.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  unlikely  that,  since  the 
political  reasons  which  had  divided  the  two  portions  of  the 
covenant  people  from  one  another  had  ceased  to  exist,  on 
account  of  the  captivity  of  both  portions,  those  Israelites  who 


time  to  time  be  discovered  in  remote  countries.  Several  interesting  works  have 
been  written  on  such,  as  for  instance  the  little  work  of  Mr.  Finn,  late  H.  B.M. 
Consul  at  Jerusalem,  on  The  Orphan  Colony  of  Jews  in  China  (Nisbet,  1872), 
and  others,  some  of  which  are  referred  to  by  Evvald.  But  the  recent  attempt  to 
trace  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  to  an  Israelitish  origin,  which  has  been  made  by  some 
English  enthusiasts,  filled  with  national  pride  on  the  one  hand,  and  with  an  igno- 
rant contempt  for  any  other  form  of  Evangelical  Christianity  than  that  which 
they  have  seen  and  learned  to  value  in  their  o\\x\.  land,  arises  only  from  spiritual 
pride,  and  must  be  treated  with  contempt.  The  theory  of  the  identity  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  race  with  the  ten,  or  any  one  of  the  tribes  of  Israel,  is  one  which 
could  only  be  propounded  by  men  ignorant  of  history  and  philology,  and  of  the 
lessons  to  be  learned  from  a  careful  study  of  such  departments.  Such  theories 
are  injurious,  because  they  are  often  readily  embraced  by  a  portion  of  the  unlearned 
mass  of  the  public,  and  they  fre(iuently  cause  others  to  entertain  an  undescn'ed 
contempt  for  that  evangelical  teaching  which  is  often  dear  to  the  adherents  of 
such  fanciful  opinions.  They  tend  also  to  divert  many  from  a  sober  and  pains- 
taking study  of  the  Word  of  God. 


Ch.  X.  8.]  THE   WAR   OF   THE   SONS   OF   ZION.  283 

did  not  amalgamate  with  the  heathen  among  whom  they 
dwelt,  as  many  no  doubt  did,  became  gradually  known  in 
common  by  the  name  of  Jews.  The  exiles  who  returned  with 
Zerubbabel  and  Ezra,  though  mainly  appertaining  to  the 
remnant  of  the  people  of  Judah,  were  often  termed  by  the 
common  name  of  "  the  children  of  Israel  "  (see  p.  244).  The 
prophets  had  frequently  spoken  of  a  day  when  the  nation, 
after  its  return  from  exile,  should  no  longer  exist  as  two 
divided  portions,  but  should  form  one  covenant  nation.  When 
the  kingdom  of  Israel  was  overturned  by  the  Assyrians,  years 
after  the  greater  portion  of  that  people  had  been  transported 
from  their  land  and  planted  beside  the  rivers  of  Media,  the 
remnant  of  the  people  of  those  tribes  which  still  remained  in 
the  land  were  by  no  means  unwilling  to  enter  into  religious 
communion  with  the  people  of  Judah  (2  Chron.  xxxiv.  9). 
It  is  highly  probable  that  what  happened  at  that  period 
occurred  to  a  greater  extent  afterwards.  The  faithful 
remnant  of  the  northern  tribes  in  all  probability  united 
themselves  readily  with  their  Jewish  brethren,  possibly  even 
in  the  land  of  exile,  and  returned  as  one  people,  known 
on  the  one  hand  by  the  general  appellation  of  "the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,"  the  term  properly  belonging  to  the  whole 
nation,  and  on  the  other  by  that  of  "  Jews,"  as  more 
distinctly  indicating  their  religion,  whose  central- point  was, 
as  it  ought  ever  to  have  been,  fixed  at  the  Jewish  capital, 
Jerusalem, 

The  people  of  the  two  tribes,  the  Jews  proper  as  they  may 
be  termed,  seem  to  have  preserved  their  genealogies  with 
greater  care  than  their  brethren  of  the  other  tribes  ;  but  even 
the  Jewish  genealogies  were  to  a  great  extent  fragmentary. 
The  people  of  Judah  were,  however,  able  for  the  most  part 
to  hand  down  to  their  children,  even  in  the  land  of  their 
captivity,  the  tradition  of  the  various  cities  to  which  they 
had  severally  belonged  in  the  land   of  Judah.      Hence  the 


284  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  x.  8. 

exiles  were  arranged  in  many  cases  net  according  to  fami- 
lies, but  according  to  the  cities  in  which  their  forefathers  had 
dwelt. 

It  ought  also  to  be  remembered  that  the  exiles  mentioned 
in  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  were  not  the  only  bands 
of  Jews  who  returned  to  the  country  of  their  forefathers. 
Large  numbers  must  have  returned  in  smaller  troops  at  dif- 
ferent periods.  Many,  no  doubt,  returned  from  Babylon  after 
the  prophetic  warning  given  by  Zechariah,  and  many  others 
at  a  later  time,  when  the  predicted  troubles  occurred,  made 
haste  to  flee  from  that  land.  The  favours  granted  to  the 
Jews  in  the  days  of  Alexander  must  have  caused  still  larger 
numbers  to  flock  to  their  country,  though  no  chronicler  has 
recorded  the  story  of  their  march  from  the  east  or  the  north. 
The  fame  of  the  Maccabcan  victories,  which  was  soon  spread 
abroad  in  all  the  bazaars  of  Asia,  must  have  caused  still 
more  of  the  Israelites  to  join  themselves  to  their  kindred. 
For  though  many  Jews  remained  at  a  distance  from  Jerusalem, 
those  exiles  kept  up  constant  intercourse  with  their  people  in 
that  city.  Some  portion  of  the  ten  tribes  were  not,  as  we 
have  seen,  carried  away  captive  from  their  own  land  (2  Chron. 
xxxiv.  9),  and  a  considerable  number  of  them  may  have  re- 
mained even  after  the  Babylonish  captivity.  A  portion  of  this 
remnant  in  process  of  time  was  no  doubt  incorporated  with 
the  Samaritan  people,  while  those  who  resisted  such  amal- 
gamation probably  united  themselves  with  the  Jews,  and  were 
called  by  their  name.  The  story  of  "  the  lost  tribes  "  mnst 
be  regarded  in  the  main  as  a  mere  legend,  though  it  may  be 
very  true  that  large  numbers  did  not  return  from  the  land  of 
their  exile.  Yet  even  in  their  land  of  exile  all  Israelites  were 
generally  known  as  Jews,  to  whatever  tribe  they  might  have 
originally  belonged.  We  do  not  deny  that  some  traces  of  the 
northern  Israelites  may  be  found  among  the  Nestorian  Jews, 
described  by  the  American  missionary  Dr.  Grant,  or  even 


Ch.  X.  8,  9.]  THE  WAR   OF   THE   SONS   OF   ZION.  285 

among  the  Karaites  and  other  Jews,  who  here  and  there 
exist  in  the  south  of  Russia^.  (See  pp.  243  ff.)  The  people 
of  Israel  in  general  are  spoken  of  by  St.  Paul  as  "  our  twelve 
tribes "  (Acts  xxvi.  7),  and  St.  James  writes  also  to  "  the 
twelve  tribes  scattered  abroad."  No  countenance  what- 
ever is  given  in  the  New  Testament  to  the  fables  of 
Josephus,  or  of  the  writer  of  4th  Ezra  (2nd  Esdras),  already- 
alluded  to ;  though  had  there  been  any  real  foundation  for 
their  statements,  it  would  have  been  only  natural  that 
some  allusion  should  have  been  made  to  such  a  remark- 
able fact.  The  people  of  all  the  twelve  tribes  did  actually 
form  one  nation,  as  predicted,  and  were  known  as  forming 
such.  If  they  did  not  return  in  greater  numbers  to  Pales- 
tine, the  fault  lay  with  themselves.  The  blessing  was  there, 
had  they  availed  themselves  of  it ;  and  greater  blessings,  had 
they  embraced  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  their  Messiah.  The 
predictions  of  this  chapter  were  fully  realized  in  the  trials, 
struggles,  and  victories  of  Israel  during  the  glorious  period 
of  the  Maccabees. 

The  statement  of  ver.  9,  "  I  will  sow  you  among  the  na- 
tions,"  has   been   variously   understood.     The   word    in    the 


^  See  Dr.  Asahel  Grant's  The  IVestorians,  or  tJit  Lost  Tribes,  London  :  1844  ; 
as  also  Prof.  Dr.  Chwolson's  Achtzehn  hebrdische  Grabinschriften  aus  der  Krim, 
St.  Petersburg,  1865.  But  Harkavy  in  his  Catalog,  and  Dr.  H.  L.  Strack  in  his 
tract,  Firkoivitsch  und  seine  Entdeckungen :  ein  Grabstein  den  hebr.  Grabschriften 
der  Krim,  1876,  have  maintained  that  none  of  these  inscriptions  in  their  present 
form  can  be  considered  as  genuine,  but  that  they  have  all  been  designedly  falsified 
by  Firkowitsch.  These  scholars  seem,  however,  to  have  gone  too  far.  Chwolson, 
in  his  interesting  "Mittheilung  "  appended  to  the  third  Heft  of  the  ZeitscJirift  der 
D.M.G.  for  1878,  still  maintains  the  genuineness  ofmany  of  the  assailed  inscriptions. 
He  gives  there  an  account  of  a  visit  he  paid  to  Tschufutkale  during  the  summer  of 
this  year,  and  of  his  excavations  in  the  cemetery  in  which  the  inscriptions  were 
found.  The  result  of  his  investigations  has  been  in  his  opinion  completely  to 
demonstrate  the  genuineness  of  some  of  the  very  inscriptions  which  have  been 
called  in  question.  It  is  at  any  rate  highly  probable  that  there  is  much  truth  at 
the  bottom  of  the  assertion  made  in  these  inscriptions  of  the  descent  of  the 
Karaites  of  the  Crimea  from  those  Israelites  who  were  carried  away  captive  by 
Shalmaneser. 


286  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  x.  9. 

original,  unless  this  passage  be  regarded  as  an  exception,  is 
never  used  of  dispersion  in  a  bad  sense.  Even  the  passage  in 
Ezek.  xxxvi.  9  cannot,  if  its  context  be  regarded,  be  viewed 
as  an  instance  in  which  a  passive  form  of  the  verb  is  used  in 
that  signification.  Notwithstanding,  therefore,  that  Ewald 
and  Hitzig  adopt  this  view, .  and  the  latter  scholar  even 
considers  this  passage  so  translated  as  a  proof  that  the 
captivity  alluded  to  could  not  have  taken  place  in  the  past, 
we  must  (with  Kohler,  Keil,  Pusey,  etc.)  adhere  to  the  iisus 
loquendi,  and  render  the  verb  "  to  sow."  The  word  is  used  in 
a  good  sense  of  the  increase  of  Israel,  even  in  a  state  of  exile 
among  the  nations,  as  in  Hos.  ii.  25  ;  Jer.  xxxii.  27.  The  in- 
crease promised  in  the  verse  before  was  a  blessing,  and  that 
blessing  was  to  be  vouchsafed  to  Israel,  even  though  scattered 
among  the  nations.  That  blessing  would  lead  them  to  re- 
member the  Lord  their  God.  For  among  the  nations,  they 
should  live  (comp.  Ezek.  xxxvii.  14)  with  their  sons,  for  the 
blessing  would  not  be  merely  transient ;  even  in  Gentile 
lands  they  would  preserve  their  own  distinctive  nationality, 
and  thence  they  would  return.  As  Israel  increased  in  Egypt, 
and  the  very  increase  of  the  people  in  that  country  was  a 
sign  that  the  time  which  had  been  foretold  was  at  hand, 
when  God  would  lead  them  forth  out  of  that  land,  so  the  mul- 
tiplication of  the  holy  nation  in  the  various  Gentile  lands 
among  which  they  were  scattered  would  lead  the  people  to 
think  of  that  God  who  had  so  wonderfully  protected  them, 
and  whose  will  it  was  that  they  should  return  to  their  own 
land. 

Kliefoth  considers  that  the  prophecy  sets  forth  that  Israel, 
after  it  should  have  emerged  victoriously  from  the  wars  with 
the  Grecian  power  as  a  numerous  people,  should  be  strewn 
as  a  seed  among  the  nations  in  the  most  distant  lands  of  the 
earth,  in  order  that  in  those  far  distant  regions  they  might 
think  of  the  God  who  had  delivered  them,  and  be  witnesses  to 


Ch.  X.  9,  lo.]        THE   WAR   OF   THE   SONS   OF   ZION.  28/ 

his  power  and  glory  among  those  nations.  He  rightly  objects 
to  the  opinion  propounded  by  von  Hofmann,  namely,  that  the 
prophecy  refers  to  the  dispersion  of  the  Jewish  people,  which 
was  the  result  of  the  crucifixion  of  our  Lord  ;  for  if  the 
prophecy  related  to  such  a  dispersion,  it  would  have  been 
expressed  in  very  different  language.  The  interpretation  of 
von  Hofmann  is  not  only  against  the  uniform  usage  of  the 
special  word,  but  not  even  in  harmony  with  the  general  tenor 
of  the  passage.  Kliefoth  considers  the  prophecy  to  contem- 
plate the  sowing  of  the  people  among  the  nations  as  a  fact 
which  was  to  last  for  a  long  period,  and  that  the  object  of 
such  a  sowing  of  Israel  among  the  nations  was  to  call  the 
heathen  unto  Christ.  He  thinks  that  the  prophecy  was 
fulfilled  when  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  Jews  i 
believed  in  Christ  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Christian  Church,  1 
as  such  believers,  scattered  among  the  peoples,  composed  in 
the  majority  of  instances  the  basis  of  the  Christian  Churches 
founded  by  the  Apostles.  He  goes,  however,  further,  and 
considers  that  as  this  "  scattering  "  among  the  peoples  was  for 
a  definite  object,  when  that  object,  namely  the  gathering  of 
the  nations  to  Christ,  should  be  attained,  God  would  again 
gather  his  people.  This  gathering  of  the  people  of  God  out 
of  all  the  world  at  the  end  of  days  is  that  which  is,  according 
to  Kliefoth's  view,  described  in  the  last  two  verses  of  this 
chapter.  But,  inasmuch  as  he  maintains  that  the  names  of 
Assyria  and  Egypt  which  occur  in  those  verses  can  be 
considered  as  used  only  in  a  typical  signification,  the  places 
in  the  Holy  Land  there  mentioned  must  be  viewed  as  also 
typical,  and  the  bringing  back  of  God's  people  to  the  land  of 
Canaan  is  to  be  regarded  as  really  signifying  the  bringing  in 
of  the  people  of  God  to  that  blessed  resting-place  which  will 
be  the  ultimate  abode  of  the  people  of  God  belonging  to 
every  tribe  and  nation. 

Though  there  may  be  something  in  this  view,  it  is  better 


288  ZECHARIAH  AND   HIS   TROPHECIES.        [Ch.  x.  8-10. 

to  regard  the  prophecy  as  speaking  first,  of  the  gathering 
together  of  the  people  of  the  twelve  tribes  in  common,  and 
of  the  increase  of  Israel  among  the  nations  in  the  land  of 
their  exile  ;  and  secondly,  of  the  increase  of  the  same  people 
after  they  should  have  been  brought  back  to  their  own  land. 
The  blessing  spoken  of  was  promised  to  the  whole  Israelitish 
people,  to  Judah  as  well  as  Ephraim.  Had  the  nation  more 
generally  hearkened  to  the  sound  of  Jahaveh's  call  (ver.  8, 
see  note  2,  page  278),  and  returned  in  larger  numbers  to  their 
land,  the  Jewish  State  would  have  been  far  more  powerful  and 
independent  than  it  ever  actually  became.  The  love  of  ease 
and  riches  marred  to  some  extent  the  promise.  Yet  a  rich 
blessing  was  actually  bestowed.  The  restoration  of  the  Jews 
was  a  marvel.  What  occurred  to  them  did  not  occur  to  any 
other  people.  The  Israelites  increased  among  the  nations, 
and,  as  the  book  of  Esther  points  out,  became  in  many  parts 
of  the  Persian  empire  an  important  power  in  the  state. 
Their  restoration  to  their  own  land,  incomplete  as  it  was 
through  their  own  fault,  was  a  preparation  for  the  coming  of 
the  Messiah.  Both  among  the  nations,  and  afterwards  in 
their  own  land,  the  Jews  were  witnesses  to  the  truth  of  God, 
and  by  their  example  eminent  preachers  of  the  doctrines  of 
monotheism.  The  successful  struggle  for  independence  un- 
der the  Maccabean  leaders,  a  struggle  undertaken,  however, 
more  for  the  .sake  of  their  religion  than  for  political  in- 
dependence, forms  a  glorious  page  in  the  history  of  the 
Church  of  Israel.  Their  non-adherence  to  the  directions  of 
the  law  as  regards  the  High  Priesthood  of  Israel,  and  the 
mistake  they  made  in  uniting  the  secular  and  ecclesiastical 
power,  was  a  new  illustration  of  that  carnal  polic}-,  which  in 
another  form  had  proved  the  ruin  of  the  kingdom  erected  by 
Jeroboam  in  earlier  days.  It  seemed  for  a  time  to  have  been 
a  consummate  stroke  of  worldly  wisdom,  but  it  proved  ulti- 
mately the  ruin  of  the  State,  and  the  downfall  of  the  Church 


Ch.  X.  lo.]  THE  WAR  OF  THE  SONS  OF  ZION.  289 

It  was  a  policy  in  opposition  to  the  law  of  Moses.  But  in 
the  struggle  with  the  Grecian  power  the  Jews  were  wonder- 
fully successful,  and  even  after  they  had  begun  to  decline 
from  the  truth,  they  were  for  a  considerable  period  sustained 
by  God's  gracious  Providence.  As  "  the  holy  seed  "  among 
the  nations,  the  Jews  prepared  far  and  wide  the  way  for  the 
victories  of  Christianity.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  a  large 
number  of  that  nation,  a  number  far  larger  than  that  of  any 
other  nation  under  heaven  in  apostolic  days,  accepted  Jesus  as  ' 
their  Messiah  and  Deliverer,  and  that  these  Jewish  converts 
formed  the  groundwork  of  the  Church  of  Christ  which  wasj 
laid  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Had  not  "the  god  of  this  world ^ 
blinded  the  minds  "  (2  Cor.  iv.  4)  of  the  ecclesiastical  rulers 
of  the  nation  in  general,  though  even  "  a  great  company  of  the 
priests  were  obedient  to  the  faith  "  (Acts  vi.  7),  the  blessings 
which  the  Jewish  people  would  have  received  cannot  be 
calculated.  In  the  remarkable  position  occupied  by  Israel 
in  the  early  Christian  Church, — for  our  Lord  and  his  apostles 
were  Jews,  and  the  majority  of  the  early  evangelists  were 
men  of  this  nation, — in  the  wonderful  fact  that  the  Jews, 
though  politically  crushed  beneath  the  Gentile  yoke,  con- 
quered the  nations  of  the  earth  by  means  of  that  religion 
which  sprang  from  their  midst, — in  such  facts  this  prophecy, 
and  other  similar  prophecies,  found  a  most  glorious  and  real 
fulfilment.  The  nations  have  been  enlightened  by  the  Jews, 
and  books  written  by  Jewish  pens  have  become  the  laws  and 
oracles  of  the  world. 

It  is  necessary  to  notice  here  some  of  the  special  difficul- 
ties connected  with  the  closing  verses  of  this  tenth  chapter. 

The  mention  of  Assyria  in  verse  10  in  place  of  Babylon 
has  been  considered  by  many  scholars,  such  as  Bleek  and  von 
Ortenberg,  to  be  a  clear  proof  that  the  prophecy  was  composed 
before  the  Babylonish  captivity.  It  may,  however,  be  argued 
on  the  other  hand,  that  special  mention  is  made  of  Assyria, 

u 


290  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  x.  10-12. 

because  the  return  of  the  northern  tribes  is  specially  spoken 
of,  and  these  tribes  were  originally  carried  away  captive  to 
Assyria  (2  Kings  xv.  29,  xvii.  6).  It  is  unsatisfactory  to 
assert  that  Assyria  and  Egypt  are  used  in  this  passage  not 
as  the  names  of  powerful  empires,  but  as  the  names  of  the 
places  whence  the  exiles  were  to  come  ;  for  "  the  pride  of 
Assyria,  the  sceptre  of  Egypt,"  are  specially  alluded  to  in 
verse  i  r,  which  shows  that  those  nations  themselves  are 
referred  to.  But  it  has  been  well  observed  that,  though 
those  kingdoms  were  subdued  under  the  yoke  first  of  Baby- 
lon and  afterwards  of  Persia,  the  relation  in  which  the  people 
of  those  lands  stood  to  the  exiles  in  their  midst  remained 
unaltered  by  these  various  conquests,  and  they  may  have  in 
many  cases  exercised  their  authority  in  a  tyrannical  manner 
over  the  Israelites  and  Jews. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  must  also  be  borne  in  mind  that 
in  post-exilian  times  the  king  of  Babylon  was  sometimes 
styled  "  the  king  of  Assyria"  (Ezra  vi.  22  ;  2  Kings  xxiii.  29  ; 
Judith  i.  7,  ii.  i  ;  comp.  Herod,  i.  178,  188),  inasmuch  as  his 
authority  extended  over  Assyria.  In  later  books  the  ex- 
pressions, "king  of  the  Persians,"  and  "king  of  Assyria,'* 
are  interchanged.  Compare  3rd  Ezra  (i  Esdras)  ii.  30  with 
vii.  15.  The  king  of  Persia  is  also  styled  king  of  Babylon  (Ezra 
v.  13  ;  Neh.  xiii.  6),  and  references  are  sometimes  made  to 
Assyria  when  Babylon  is  really  signified,  or  when,  as  in  this 
passage,  allusion  is  made  to  the  enemies  of  the  covenant  people 
north  and  south  of  their  land  (comp.  Lam.  v.  6  ;  Jcr.  ii.  18). 

The  restoration  of  Ephraim  is  generally  spoken  of  in 
connexion  with  that  of  Judah,  because  the  restoration  of 
both  formed  integral  parts  of  one  great  event.  When 
their  united  restoration  is  spoken  of  by  the  prophets,  refer- 
ence is  frequently  made  to  the  bringing  up  of  Israel  out 
the  bondage  of  Egypt.  Therefore,  when  Israel  is  spoken  of 
as  delivered  out  of   the  hands  of  those  enemies,  who  from 


Ch.  X.  IO-I2.]        THE  WAR   OF   THE   SONS   OF   ZION.  29I 

the  north  and  south  were  so  often  wont  to  oppress  them, 
mention  is  made  of  a  recovery  from  the  hand  of  Assyria, 
as  the  first  great  enemy  that  subjugated  them  from  the  north, 
and  from  the  power  of  Egypt,  which  had  so  often  harassed 
Israel  by  invasions  from  the  south.  Allusions,  more  or  less 
distinct,  are  frequently  made  to  the  wonderful  drying  up  of 
the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea  on  the  occasion  of  the  first  great 
deliverance  of  that  people,  which  was  to  be  regarded  as  a 
type  of  the  deliverance  to  be  expected  in  future  days.  See 
Isa.  xi,"  II,  12,  15,  16,  xxvii.  i,  12,  13  ;  Mic.  vii.  12-15.  In 
the  last-named  passage,  worshippers  are  spoken  of  as  coming 
to  Jerusalem  "from  Assyria  and  from  the  cities  of  Egypt," 
(not  "  the  fortified  cities  "  as  in  our  Authorised  Version),  and 
from  Egypt  (incorrectly  rendered  in  our  Authorised  Version 
"  the  fortress  "),  "  even  to  the  river,"  that  is,  the  Euphrates. 

The  mention  made  of  the  bringing  down  of  the  pride  of 
Assyria  may  be  regarded  as  fulfilled  when  Assyria  and 
Babylon  were  finally  crushed  by  Darius,  after  repeated  rebel- 
lions. The  victories  over  those  enemies  Darius  commemor- 
ated in  the  great  rock  inscription  at  Behistun  (see  pp.  38  and 
39,  note).  Those  nations  were  finally  absorbed  in  the  sea  of 
the  surrounding  peoples  by  the  conquests  of  the  Macedonians. 
The  passing  away  of  the  sceptre  of  Egypt  was  accomplished 
when  that  country,  which  had  also  revolted  against  Darius, 
was  finally  subdued  by  Xerxes,  and  placed  under  a  harder 
yoke  than  Darius  had  laid  upon  it  (Herod,  vii.  i,  7).  The 
prophecy  was  more  fully  accomplished  when  Egypt  was 
transformed  into  a  Grecian  kingdom.  In  the  special  men- 
tion of  "  the  sceptre  of  Egypt,"  a  reference  may  be  made, 
as  Lange  has  suggested,  to  the  tyranny  of  Pharaoh  in  early 
days,  which  was  the  great  type  of  all  future  oppressors  of 
the  people  of  God.^ 

'  The  prophet  Hosea  speaks  of  the  ten  tribes  as  destined  to  become  in  part  exiles 
in  the  land  of  Egypt;  Hos.  viii.  13,  ix.  3,  6.     Compare  the  emphatic  declaration 


292  ZECHARTAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.      [Ch.  x.  10-12. 

It  is  not  unlikely,  as  Kohlcr  has  observed,  that  at  the 
time  of  the  invasions  of  Tiglath-Pilneser  and  Shalmaneser, 
numbers  of  the  ten  tribes  fled  to  Egypt.  That  country  was 
often  resorted  to  as  a  place  of  escape  from  dangers  arising 
in  the  land  of  Israel  (i  Kings  xi.  40  ;  Jer.  xxvi.  21).  There 
was  a  party  favourable  to  Egypt  at  the  court  of  the  later 
kings  of  Israel,  as  well  as  one  more  inclined  to  form  an 
alliance  with  Assyria.  This  appears  from  the  book  of  Hosea; 
and  it  is  quite  natural  to  suppose  that,  when  the  king  of 
Assyria  invaded  the  land  of  Israel,  many  fled  into  Egypt. 
The  same  conflict  of  parties  prevailed  at  the  court  of  the 
kings  of  Judah,  and  after  the  captivity  many  of  those 
Jews  who  had  been  left  in  the  land  fled  to  Egypt,  in 
consequence  of  the  treacherous  assassination  of  Gcdaliah 
by  Ishmael,  in  order  to  avoid  the  vengeance  of  the  Chal- 
daeans  (Jer.  xli.  17,  xliii.  7).  As  a  common  slave-mart  of 
the  world,  many  Israelites  as  well  as  Jews  may  have  been 
often  deported  thither  "in  ships"  (Dcut..  xxviii.  65),  and 
sold  for  bondmen  and  bondwomen.  This  was  a  notorious 
fact  in  later  times,  and  it  no  doubt  occurred  also  at  earlier 
periods. 

Kimchi  has  in  this  manner  explained  the  passages  in 
Hos.  viii.  13  and  ix.  3.  On  the  latter  he  remarks,  that 
"  although  the  kingdom  of  Ephraim  was  carried  into  cap- 
in  Deut.  xxviii.  65.  Zechariah  is  supposed  by  some  to  refer  to  such  prophecies. 
The  latter  declaration  (Hos.  xi.  5),  "  he  shall  not  return  to  Egyi:)t,"  has  often  been 
considered  to  be  in  direct  contradiction  to  Hosea's  earlier  prophecies.  Some 
propose  therefore,  on  the  authority  of  the  LXX.,  to  erase  the  negative  in  that 
text,  while  others  (as  Ewald)  prefer  to  treat  the  sentence  as  interrogative.  "Shall 
he  not  return  to  Egypt  ?  "  to  the  land  of  bondage  under  the  Pharaohs.  Interroga- 
tive sentences  without  any  interrogative  particles  form  one  of  the  peculiarities  of 
Hosea's  diction.  So  in  Hosea  xiii.  14,  "  Shall  I  not  rescue  them  from  the  hand 
of  Sheol  ? "  Nor  can  we  consider  that  the  mode  of  explaining  the  difficulty  is 
satisfactory,  which  is  resorted  to  by  Wiinsche  and  Keil,  namely,  to  explain  Egypt 
as  spoken  of  typically  as  the  land  of  bondage  in  the  first  passage  (Hos.  viii.  ix.), 
while  it  is  taken  literally  in  the  latter  ;  for  the  return  of  Ephraim  to  Egypt  is 
distinctly  implied  in  Hos.  xi.  II. 


Ch.  X.  IO-I2.]       THE  WAR   OF   THE   SONS   OF   ZION.  293 

tivity  by  the  king  of  Assyria,  yet  there  were  many  of  them 
who  before  that  captivity  returned  to  Egypt,  in  consequence 
of  famine  and  the  trials  they  met  with  in  their  own  land. 
There  were  also  some  of  the  Ephraimites  who  remained  in 
their  own  land  until  the  captivity  of  Judah  and  Benjamin, 
with  whom  they  returned  into  Egypt,  although  the  prophet 
Jeremiah  would  have  kept  them  back  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord."i 

A  second  difficulty  in  the  passage  arises  from  the  men- 
tion which  is  made  in  it  of  the  "  land  of  Gilead  and  Leba- 
non "  as  the  place  whither  the  exiles  should  return.  This 
has  been  regarded  by  von  Ortenberg  and  others  as  an  "  in- 
contestible  "  proof  that  the  prophet  must  have  referred  to 
the  deportation  by  Tiglath-Pileser,  and  consequently  that  the 
prophecy  must  be  assigned  to  a  period  considerably  earlier 
than  the  Babylonian  captivity.  Bleek  maintains  with  Maurer 
and  Ewald,  that  though  it  is  possible  for  Gilead  to  be  used 
to  signify  the  portion  of  the  territory  of  Ephraim  east  ot 
the  Jordan,  Lebanon  cannot,  as  Hengstenberg  has  asserted, 
be  taken  to  signify  the  territory  of  Ephraim  west  of  the 
Jordan,  but  only  its  most  northern. portion.  The  prophecy  of 
Zechariah,  according  to  their  view,  must,  therefore,  have  been 
composed  at  a  time  when  the  northern  part  of  that  Israel- 
itish  territory  was  depopulated  by  the  king  of  Assyria,  who, 
in  consequence  of  the  treaty  of  alliance  which  he  made  with 
Ahaz  king  of  Judah  (2  Kings  xv.  29  ;  i  Chron.  v.  6,  26), 
ravaged  that  part  of  the  territory  of  Israel,  and  carried  away 
a  large  portion  of  its  population. 

To  this  argument  in  favour  of  a  pre-exilian  date  being 
assigned  to  this  portion  of  the  book,  Kohler  gives  a  satis- 
factory reply.  If  Gilead  could,  on  the  principle  of  a  part 
for  the  whole,    be  used    to  designate  the  territory  of  Israel 

^  Kimchi  on  Hosea,  quoted  by  Wiinsche,  Der  Prophet  Hosea  iihersetzt  und 
erkldrt.     Leipzig  :  Weigel,  1868. 


294  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS    TROrHECIES.       [Ch.  x.  10-12. 

on  the  other  side  of  Jordan,  of  which  it  only  formed  a  small 

portion,   the  land  of  Lebanon  might  on  the  same  principle 

with  equal  propriety  signify  that  portion  of  the  land  which 

lay  on  the  other  side,  designated  from  its  highest  range  of 

mountains.     In  Ezekiel's  parable  of  the  eagles  (chap,  xvii.) 

the  whole    land  of   Palestine  is  described  as    Lebanon,  and 

the  king  of  Judah  as  the  foliage  of   the  cedar  of  Lebanon. 

Similarly    in    Mic.  vii.    14    "the    wood  of    Carmel "  is    used 

as    a  designation  of  Palestine    on  the    west    of   the  Jordan, 

while  "Bashan  and  Gilead  "  denote  the  possessions  of  Israel 

on  the  other  side  of  that  river. 

The   translation   of  verse   1 1   is  attended  with  difficulties. 

The   simplest  rendering    perhaps    is,    "And    he    (Jahaveh)^ 

shall  pass  through  (perfect  proph.)  the  sea,  (that  is,  or  where 

is)  affliction,"  the  last  word  being  viewed  as  in  apposition  to 

the  noun  preceding  it.      So  Umbreit,   C.  B.    Michaelis,  and 

Keil.     The  translation,  "sea  of  affliction,"  is  ungrammatical, 

though  the  meaning  is  almost  the  same.     The  passage  might 

also    be  rendered    as  an   exclamation,    "and    he   shall   pass 

through  the  sea,  affliction  !  "  {i.e.  trouble  arises  !)    So  Kohler  ; 

but  this  is  not  a  natural  translation.      On   the  other  hand, 

Maurer,  von  Ortenberg,  and  Kliefoth  consider  the  word  to  be 

a  verb.     The  verb  does  not  actually  occur  in  this  signification 

in  Hebrew,  but  is  used  in  Aramaic  in  the  sense  of  to  divide, 

and  derivatives  are  found  in  Hebrew  from  the  verb  in  that 

signification.     According   to  this  view,  the  passage   may  be 

rendered,  "  And  he  passes  through  the  sea,  he  divides,  and 

strikes    the    waves  in    the  sea."     This    afiords    a  fair  sense. 

'  Lange  considers  that  the  Messiah  is  here  distinctly  referred  to.  He  tliinks  tliis 
is  evident  from  the  works  which  the  Messiah  here  performs,  namely,  making  a  pas- 
sage as  Moses  through  the  sea,  and  smiting  the  waters  as  Elijah.  If  such,  however, 
were  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  Zechariah  wouldhardly  have  introduced  the  verb 
without  even  a  pronoun  as  its  subject.  We  cannot,  therefore,  believe  tliat  what  fol- 
lows is  represented  as  the  special  work  of  the  Messiah.  As  the  Messiah  is,  however, 
the  Great  Servant  of  Jahaveh,  what  is  represented  as  done  by  Jahaveh  himself  may 
be  considered  as  done  by  him  who  perfomis  all  Jahavth's  good  will  and  pleasure. 


Ch.  X.  10-12.]       THE   WAR   OF   THE   SONS   OF   ZION.  295 

The  only  objection  which  can  be  made  to  it  is,  that  the 
verb  itself  does  not  actually  occur  in  the  remains  of  Bibli- 
cal Hebrew.^  The  word  tl1)i  misrht  also  be  regarded  as  an 
adverbial  accusative,  thus  :  "  he  passes  through  the  sea,  with 
affliction."  So  Marck,  Koster,  Delitzsch.  The  explanation 
of  Hitzig  is  most  arbitrary.  Retranslates,  "and  he  passes 
through  the  Sea  Affliction  and  strikes  the  Sea  Surging 
( Wogend,  properly,  he  notes,  waves,  surges),  and  all  the  deeps 
of  the  Nile  dry  up,  and  the  sceptre  of  Egypt  yields."  Hitzig 
understands  the  prophet  to  refer  to  two  seas,  one  symbol- 
izing Assyria,  and  the  other  Egypt.  In  the  Hebrew  word 
rni,  rendered  "  affliction  "  or  "  trouble,"  he  conceives  there 
is  a  play  upon  the  name  of  Egypt  (")ii{12);  and  by  "waves," 
in  the  second  clause,  he  understands  the  river  Euphrates. 
One  sea,  however,  is  alone  referred  to  in  the  passage,  namely, 
the  sea  of  Egypt,  and  one  river,  that  is,  the  Nile.  Some  of 
the  difficulties  of  the  passage  would  be  solved  by  the  adop- 
tion of  Ewald's  suggestion,  namely,  to  read  in  both  clauses, 
in  place  of  0^2  with  the  article,  D^2l  without  the  article.  The 
clauses  then  would  be  rendered  "a  sea  of  affliction"  and  "a 
sea  of  waves."  The  latter  expression,  "  a  sea  of  waves,'^ 
would  signify  a  stormy  sea,  and  the  terms  might  be  ex- 
plained to  refer  to  the  Red  Sea  and  the  Euphrates,  as 
severally  indicating  Egypt  and  Assyria,  or  to  the  Red  Sea 
and  the  Nile,  in  which  case  both  would  signify  Egypt. 

The  Euphrates,  however,  cannot  here  be  regarded  as 
spoken  of,  for  the  word  used  in  the  expression  "  the  depths 
of  the  river  "^  ("'*'^!)   is  almost  exclusively  used  of  the  Nile. 

'  Drake.,  in  the  Spcakt^'s  Commentary,  has  translated  "  and  he  shall  pass  over 
by  the  narrow  sea,  literally  by  the  sea,  narrowness,  meaning  the  Red  Sea,  and 
shall  smite  by  the  rolling  sea,  literally  by  the  sea,  rollers."  He  appeals  to  Jonah 
ii.  3,  but  that  passage  does  not  support  his  interpretation.  This  would  require 
C^D  "^"t^,  per  angiistam  (angustias)  maris  ;  "1^  as  in  Isaiah  lix.  19,  "as  a  stream 
dammed-up  "  which  having  broken  through  is  driven  forward  by  a  mighty  wind. 
See  DeHtzsch  on  that  passage. 

2  Scarcely  to  be  rendered  with  Drake  "  the  floods  of  the  Nile,"  especially  if  such 


296  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   rROPHECIES.       [Ch.  x.  10-12. 

This  fact  proves  that  the  reference  is  really  to  the  great 
deliverance  from  Egypt,  which  is  used  as  the  type  of  fu- 
ture deliverances.  In  the  picture,  therefore,  which  is  drawn, 
the  later  foe,  Assyria,  is  dropped  almost  out  of  view,  or 
figuratively  referred  to  under  the  symbol  of  Egypt.  Under 
the  symbol  of  an  exodus  from  Egypt  and  from  under  its 
power,  and  a  march  through  a  sea  and  river,  such  as  occurred 
in  the  days  of  the  first  triumphal  march  of  Israel,  the  great 
truth  is  set  forth,  that  amid  all  trials  and  afflictions  the 
covenant  people  would  be  delivered  by  the  protecting  hand 
of  God.  The  deliverances  of  the  past  had  been  indeed 
glorious,  and  he  who  dried  up  the  Avatcrs  of  the  great  deep 
could  make  a  way  out  of  every  difficulty,  in  order  that  his 
ransomed  people  might  pass  over  to  their  allotted  inheri- 
tance. Compare  Isa.  li.  9-1 1.  For  though  the  pride  of 
Assyria  and  Babylon  would  be  humbled,  and  the  sceptre 
of  Egypt  depart,  "  I  will  strengthen  them  in  Jahaveh,  and 
in  his  name  they  shall  walk,"  that  is  in  his  strength  and 
by  his  power  (see  Mic.  iv.  5).  Deprived  of  the  blessing  of 
God,  Israel  was  weak  and  helpless  ;  but  with  the  blessing 
from  above,  and  walking  steadily  in  God's  ways,  Israel  would 
indeed  be  strong,  and  tread  upon  the  high  places  of  all 
their  foes  (Deut.  xxxiii.  29). 

a  rendering  be  supposed  to  convey  a  reference  to  the  overflowing  of  that  river, 
■which  would  be  contrary  to  the  usage  of  the  word  in  other  places. 


CHAPTER    X. 


THE     GOOD     SHEPHERD    AND     HIS    REJECTION— THE 
EVIL    SHEPHERD    AND    HIS   DOOM. 


CHAPTER  X. 


The  opening  of  chapter  xi.,  opinion  of  critics,  299 — Objections,  300 — The  expres- 
sions not  to  be  regarded  as  symbolical,  300 — The  destruction  of  trees  spoken  of 
by  the  prophets,  301 — The  prophecy  one  of  the  literal  desolation  of  the  land, 
302 — The  desolation  affecting  north  and  south,  302 — Remarkable  traditional 
interpretation,  303,  note — The  actions  of  the  prophet  represent  the  actions  of 
God,  304 — The  sheep  of  slaughter,  different  opinions,  305 — Feeding  the  flock, 
306 — The  shepherds  foreign  oppressors,  306 — The  inhabitants  of  ' '  the  land  " 
or  "the  world,"  307 — The  punishment  of  the  nations,  308— The  shepherd  and 
his  staves,  308 — The  prophecy  supplemental  to  the  preceding,  309 — The  times 
to  which  it  refers,  310 — Mercies  vouchsafed  to  Israel  after  the  restoration,  311  — 
The  cutting  off  of  the  three  shepherds,  312 — The  kings  of  the  Gentiles,  313 — 
Difficulties  arising  from  the  term,  "  one  month,"  313 — Review  of  various  exposi- 
tions, 313-316,  320,  note — The  "month"  as  a  symbolical  term,  317 — The  thirty 
years  of  the  Maccabees,  317 — Attempts  to  explain  prophecy  as  pre-exilian, 
Davidson's  view,  318 — Hitzig's,  318 — View  of  Ewald  and  Dean  Stanley,  320 — 
The  weariness  of  the  shepherd,  321 — His  solemn  decision,  322 — The  breaking 
of  the  staves,  322,  342 — The  covenant  with  the  nations  dissolved,  322-324 — 
"The  most  wretched  sheep,"  325 — "Those  who  observed  me,"  325,  ff. — Sugges- 
tion of  Hitzig,  326 — "  Psalter  of  Solomon,"  327 — The  demand  for  wages,  328 — 
The  proffered  remuneration,  329 — "  Fling  it  to  the  potter,"  329 — The  command 
performed  in  the  temple,  330 — Different  translations,  331 — Objections  to  the  view 
of  Ilengstenberg,  332- -Review  of  Kliefoth's  exposition,  333— The  citation  in  St. 
Matthew,  333-338,  342 — No  difficulty  in  admission  of  a  mistake,  337  and  note 
— The  prophecy  of  Zechariah  an  allegory,  338 — Christ  as  the  shepherd,  and 
his  rejection,  339 — The  fulfilment  as  noticed  by  St.  Matthew,  341 — The  quotation 
a  free  one,  342 — The  brotherhood  broken,  343 — Review  of  opinion  of  modem 
critics,  343,  ff. — The  fulfilment,  345 — The  Micked  shepherd,  346 — "  Idol  shep- 
herd," an  erroneous  translation,  346,  note — The  ir(?tnuncnts  of  the  evil  shepherd, 
347 — Folly  and  sin,  348 — Opinion  of  modern  critics,  34S — The  Roman  oppres- 
sor, 349,  ff. — The  destruction  of  the  evil  shepherd,  351. 


CHAPTER     X. 

THE   GOOD   SHEPHERD   AND   HIS   REJECTION — THE 
EVIL    SHEPHERD   AND   HIS   DOOM. 

The  opening  of  the  eleventh  chapter  is  couched  in  dramatic 
language — "  Open  thy  doors,  O  Lebanon,  and  let  the  fire 
devour  thy  cedars."  There  is  no  doubt  a  connexion  between 
this  prophecy  and  that  which  precedes  it ;  but  it  is  not  so 
close  that  the  one  can  be  fairly  viewed  as  a  direct  continua- 
tion of  the  other.  The  denunciation  of  the  anger  of  Jahaveh 
against  the  shepherds  who  did  evil  instead  of  good  to  the 
sheep  committed  to  their  charge  is  similar  to  that  which 
occurs  in  the  preceding  prophecy  (x.  3).  Moreover,  while 
Lebanon  and  the  land  of  Gilead  are  spoken  of  in  the  pre- 
vious chapter  (x.  10),  Lebanon,  Bashan,  and  the  Jordan  are 
mentioned  in  this. 

Some  scholars,  as  Bleek,  Knobel,  and  von  Ortenberg,  main- 
tain that  the  first  three  verses  of  the  eleventh  chapter  form 
an  independent  prophecy,  without  any  connection  with  the 
prediction  in  the  latter  part  of  the  chapter.  These  three 
verses  are  viewed  by  these  critics  as  a  prophecy  of  the  cam- 
paign of  Tiglath-Pileser,  king  of  Assyria,  against  the  allied 
forces  of  Syria  and  Israel,  then  commanded  by  their  respec- 
tive monarchs,  Rezin,  king  of  Syria,  and  the  wild  and  savage 
Pekah,  king  of  Israel.  The  invasion  of  the  Assyrians  into 
Syria  and  Israel  was  made  by  Tiglath-Pileser  at  the  urgent 
request  of  Ahaz,  king  of  Judah,  who  had  become  a  vassal  of 
the  great  king,  and  sought  his  assistance  against  his  northern 
enemies,  who  pressed  him  sore.  As  the  Assyrian  campaign 
was  carried  on  chiefly  in  the  north  of  Israel,  a  portion  of  the 


300  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS   rROPHECIES.        [Ch.  xi.  i,  2. 

language  of  this  prophecy  would  fairly  enough  agree  with 
that  theory.  But  when  examined  more  closely,  these  verses 
appear  to  describe  a  desolation  not  merely  affecting  the 
northern  portions  of  the  land,  but  also  its  southern  districts, 
and,  therefore,  the  theory  of  Bleck  and  Knobcl  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  a  satisfactory  explanation. 

Nor  can  these  verses  be  considered  as  forming  a  suitable 
close  of  the  prediction  immediately  preceding  them.  The 
expressions  found  in  them  are  far  too  vague  to  permit  us 
to  regard  them  as  an  independent  prediction  of  any  special 
invasion  of  the  Holy  Land ;  for  the  language  made  use  of 
might  be  applied  to  any  invasion  whatever  undertaken  against 
the  Holy  Land  from  the  north,  if  such  an  invasion  aff'ectcd 
also  the  southern  portion  of  the  country.  Hence  the  opinion 
of  Hitzig,  Ewald,  etc.,  is  to  be  preferred,  namely,  that  the 
verses  in  question  are  to  be  regarded  as  introductory  to  the 
prophecy  which  follows. 

We  agree  with  Bleck  and  Kcil  in  thinking  that  the  vivid 
description  of  these  opening  verses  is  not  to  be  regarded  as 
figurative  or  symbolical.  The  cedars  of  Lebanon,  oaks  of 
Bashan,  and  other  kindred  expressions,  need  not  be  in- 
terpreted to  signify  rulers  and  great  men  of  the  earth.  The 
great  difference  of  opinion  which  has  always  existed  in  the 
interpretation  and  application  of  these  supposed  symbols 
tends  to  prove,  as  Bleck  has  well  remarked,  that  the  alle- 
gorical interpretation  is  by  no  means  so  clear  as  has  been 
asserted  by  some  commentators.^     No   doubt   parallel    pas- 

1  Thus  the  Targum  and  Kimchi  understand  these  expressions  to  mean  the  kings 
of  the  Gentile  nations  who  oppressed  the  covenant  people,  and  this  opinion  has 
been  defended  by  v.  Hofmann  and  Kliefoth.  On  the  other  hand,  Hitzig,  Maurer, 
and  Ewald  have  explained  the  terms  to  denote  the  later  kings  of  Israel  and  their 
nobles.  They  do  so,  of  course,  on  the  supposition  of  the  pre-exilian  authorship  of 
the  prophecy.  Ilengstenberg,  KiJhler,  and  others,  have  regarded  them  as  signify- 
ing the  rulers  of  the  Jewish  nations  in  later  days.  Others  have  maintained  that 
they  mean  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  of  New  Testament  times.  The  use  of  the 
expression  the  mighty  ( Dl/l!!? )  in  verse  2  is  not  by  any  means  so  conclusively  in 


Ch.  >i.  I,  2.]    THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.  30I 

sages  can  be  cited  where  trees  are  used  in  a  symbolical  sense 
(Ezek.  XX.  47,  48,  xvii.  22-24),  and  where  despots  and  ty- 
rants are  figuratively  termed  "lions"  (Ezek.  xix.  2-7).  But 
it  is  very  questionable  whether  a  single  clear  passage  can 
be  adduced  where  tyrannical  rulers  are  referred  to  (without 
a  distinct  interpretation  being  given  as  in  Ezek.  xxxi.  3) 
under  the  imagery  of  cedars  of  Lebanon,  cypresses,  or  oaks 
of  Bashan  (Isa.  ii.  13  is  not  a  case  in  point),  though  the 
imagery  in  itself  cannot  be  considered  as  altogether  destitute 
of  analogy. 

But  there  is  no  necessity  whatever  to  regard  the  language 
as  figurative.  The  prophet  Isaiah  uses  similar  expressions  in 
allusion  to  the  march  of  Sennacherib  into  the  Holy  Land  : 
"  With  the  multitude  of  my  chariots  I  am  come  up  to  the 
height  of  the  mountains,  to  the  sides  of  Lebanon,  and  will 
cut  down  the  tall  cedar  trees  thereof,  and  the  choice  fir  trees 
thereof,  and  I  will  enter  into  the  lodgings  of  his  borders  (i.e., 
his  most  distant  lodging  place,  in  Isaiah,  "  his  highest  peak,"), 
and  unto  the  forest  of  his  Carmel "  (i.e.,  his  fruitful  grove) — 
2  Kings  xix.  23  ;  Isa.  xxxvii.  24.  The  same  prophet,  in  his 
exquisite  song  over  the  downfall  of  the  king  of  Babylon — 
often  terribly  misapplied  and  perverted,  as  if  it  contained  any 
prophecy  of  the  Antichrist  of  a  latter  day — thus  poetically 
describes  the  joy  of  the  trees  in  being  freed  from  the  fear  of 
continual  destruction  :  "  Yea,  the  fir  trees  rejoice  at  thee,  and 
the  cedars  of  Lebanon,  saying.  Since  thou  art  laid  down,  no 
feller  is  come  up  (or  will  come  up)  against  us"  (Isa.  xiv.  8). 

It  is  therefore  more  natural  to  regard  the  prophecy 
of  Zechariah  as  graphically  depicting  the  physical  desola- 
tion which  was  to  befal   the  land.      Lebanon  is  bidden  to 

favour  of  the  symbolical  interpretation  as  Hengstenberg  and  Kliefoth  imagine,  who 
maintain  that  by  it  is  signified  the  nobles  of  the  nation.  For  though  that  adjective 
is  often  applied  to  individuals,  it  is  likewise  applied  to  the  waves  of  the  sea 
(Ps.  xciii.  4),  and  to  trees,  as  vines  and  cedars  (Ezek.  xvii.  8,  23),  which  is  the 
most  natural  explanation  of  the  expression  in  this  passage  of  Zechariah. 


3b2  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   rROPHECIES.         [Ch.  xi.  1-3. 

open  its  doors,  that  is,  its  steep  mountain  paths,  in  order  that 
the  fire  of  the  enemy  might  consume  its  cedars.  The  firs,  or 
cypresses,  are  called  upon  to  howl  and  lament  because  the 
cedars  are  fallen,  for  if  the  more  excellent  and  valuable  trees 
were  felled  without  mercy,  the  poor  firs  and  cypresses  must 
needs  expect  a  similar  fate  (comp.  Isa.  xxxii.  19,  in  the 
original  Hebrew).  From  the  heights  of  Lebanon  the  des- 
tructive storm  sweeps  down  on  the  land  of  Bashan,  and  the 
oaks,  the  pride  of  the  land  (with  their  kindly  shade  from 
the  burning  heat),  are  likewise  felled  by  the  enemy  to  meet 
the  wants  of  the  invading  army,  and  to  construct  his  means 
of  offence  and  defence.  Thus  the  wood  hitherto  practically 
inaccessible  is  brought  low  (see  crit.  comm.  on  verse  2).  The 
desolating  storm  sweeps  from  the  high  lands  to  the  low  lands. 
The  very  shepherds  are  forced  to  howl,  because  their  splen- 
dour is  laid  waste,  namely,  the  pasture  lands  in  which  they 
were  wont  to  tend  and  feed  their  flocks  in  the  days  of  peace 
and  quiet.  The  conflagration  extends  even  to  the  south  of 
the  land.  Judah  is  wrapped  in  flames.  The  close  thickets 
which  fringed  the  Jordan  river  as  it  ran  along  through  the 
territory  of  the  southern  kingdom  are  consumed  by  the  fire. 
The  thickets  which  shut  in  that  stream  so  closely  that  its 
waters  could  not  be  seen  till  the  traveller  was  close  on  its 
banks,  which  were  wont  to  be  the  abode  of  lions  and  other 
beasts  of  prey  in  those  days,  are  likewise  described  as  des- 
troyed. "  The  pride  of  Jordan"  is  rendered  desolate,  and 
hence  the  voice  of  the  roaring  of  lions  is  heard  wailing  over 
the  general  ruin. 

The  destruction  is  thus  really  presented  as  one  affecting 
both  the  north  and  south  of  the  land.  The  terms  in  which  it 
is  described  are  not  such  as  would  be  used  to  describe  a 
calamity  that  was  to  fall  only  on  the  northern  part  of  the 
country.  The  language  does  not,  therefore,  suit  the  invasion 
of  Tiglath-Pileser.     But  the   prophecy   is   couched    in  such 


Ch.xi.i-3.]    THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.  303 

general  terms  that  it  might  describe  any  invasion  which  em- 
braced in  its  limits  the  north  and  south  of  the  land,  though 
it  would  most  naturally  refer  to  such  an  invasion  coming  from 
the  northern  quarter.  The  cedars  of  Lebanon,  and  the  firs 
and  oaks  of  Bashan,  were  always  in  requisition  for  the  siege 
works  of  any  army,  whether  Assyrian,  Babylonian,  Greek,  or 
Roman.  But  if  the  cedars,  oaks,  and  other  trees  were  des- 
troyed, Lebanon  and  Bashan  would  be  thoroughly  laid  waste. 
"  The  splendour  of  the  shepherds "  can  only  signify  their 
pasture-lands,  and  if  the  thickets  of  Jordan  were  consumed, 
much  more  must  the  fertile  lands  be  also  considered  as  laid 
waste.  Hence  the  prophecy  really  depicts  the  whole  land  as 
desolated,  as  it  would  be  if  all  its  trees  and  thickets  were 
consumed.^ 

After  announcing  in  general  terms  the  judgment  that  was 
coming  on  the  land  of  Israel,  the  prophet  proceeds  to  describe 
the  causes  which  would  ultimately  bring  upon  the  land  this 
terrible  visitation,  similar  to  that  which  had  occurred  in  the 
days  of  old.  In  setting  forth  the  sins  of  the  people,  Zechariah, 
after  the  analogy  of  the  earlier  prophets,  describes  certain 
symbolical   actions  as  performed  by  himself,  which  actions 

^  A  remarkable  traditional  exposition  of  this  passage,  though  it  is  one  which 
cannot  be  regarded  by  a  scientific  expositor  as  otherwise  than  fanciful,  is  that  which 
supposes  the  prophecy  to  refer  to  the  destruction  of  the  second  temple,  which  was 
constructed,  like  the  first,  in  great  part  of  the  cedars  of  Lebanon.  The  tradition  is 
referred  to  by  Kimchi,  and  is  thus  given  by  McCaul  from  the  Talmud  Bab. 
Yoma,  39,  col.  2  :  "  Our  Rabbis  have  handed  down  the  tradition  that  forty  years 
before  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  the  lot  (for  the  goat  that  was  to  be  sacrificed 
on  the  day  of  Atonement)  did  not  come  out  on  the  right  side  ;  neither  did  the 
scarlet  tongue  (that  used  to  be  fastened  between  the  horns  of  the  scapegoat)  turn 
white  (as  according  to  tradition  it  used  to  do,  to  signify  that  the  sins  of  the  people 
were  forgiven)  ;  neither  did  the  western  lamp  burn  ;  the  doors  of  the  sanctuary 
also  opened  of  their  own  accord,  until  R.  Johanan,  the  son  of  Zakkai,  reproved 
them.  He  said,  O  sanctuary,  sanctuary  !  why  dost  thou  trouble  thyself  ?  I  know 
of  thee  that  thine  end  is  to  be  left  desolate,  for  Zechariah,  the  son  of  Iddo,  has 
prophesied  against  thee  long  since,  '  Open  thy  doors,  O  Lebanon,  that  the  fire 
may  devour  thy  cedars. '  R.  Isaac,  the  son  of  Tavlai,  says,  Why  is  the  temple 
called  Lebanon  (white  mountain)  ?  Answer  :  Because  it  makes  white  the  sins  of 
Israel,  etc." — AlcCauVs  transl.  of  Kimchi,  note  on  p.  119. 


304  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.xi.i-8. 

shadowed  forth   events  that  were   to   come.     His   language 
had,  no  doubt,  a  reference  to  the  past  ;'  but  it  pointed  in  the 
main  to  the  future.     The  actions  recorded  in  the  chapter  are 
not  to  be  regarded  as  done  by  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh.     In 
the  earlier   prophecies   of  Zechariah  that   angel   is,    indeed, 
spoken  of  as  being  an  actor  in  the  visions  which  the  prophet 
beheld.     But  no  intimation  whatever  is  given  in  this  chapter, 
that  either  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh,  or  the  future  Messiah,  is  to 
be  regarded  as  the  doer  of  the  things  related.     The  prophet, 
and  the  prophet  alone,  must  needs  be  considered  as  the  doer 
of  them.     Nor  can  we  regard  the  prophet  as  typifying   or 
representing  the  Angel   of  Jahaveh  in  such  a  way  that  he 
is   to   be    regarded   as   speaking  sometimes  in  the  name  of 
that  angel  and  sometimes  in  the  name  of  Jahaveh.     This  is, 
indeed,  the  view  of  Hengstenberg,  but  there  is  something 
strange  in.  considering  the  prophet  to  act  as  the  representa- 
tive of  an  angel  who  is  not  named  in  the  prophecy.    We  have 
no  right  to  assume  that  the  prophecy  is  a  continuation   of 
the  visions  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  book.     The  simplest 
view  of  the  whole  is  that  which  is  given  by  Kliefoth,  namely, 
that  God  communicated  to  the  prophet  what  he  designed  to 
do  to  Israel  and  the  world,  but  in  such  a  way  that  the  prophet 
is  described  as  doing  and  saying  that  which  God  really  did 
in  his  own  person.      The  actions  of  the  prophet,  therefore, 
though  represented  as  done  by  him,  are  to  be  regarded  as 
the  actions  of  God.     Jahaveh  himself  is  the  true  shepherd 
of  his    people,  as   is  beautifully  described   in  the  prophecy 
of  Isaiah  (xl.  ii).     He  is  the  Righteous  One  who  is  repre- 
sented as  destroying  the  three  shepherds  in  one  month.     He 
it  is  who  asks  from  an  ungrateful  people  his  hire  for  having 
discharged    the   office  of  a  shepherd,   and   complains  of  the 
low  and  unworthy  price  at  which  his  services  were  estimated. 
The  prophecy  is,  we  believe,  one  of  a  peculiarly  Messianic 
character.     What   Jahaveh   is   said    to   perform  through  his 


Ch.  xi.  i-S.]    THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.         305 

prophet,  was  done  in  very  deed  by  the  Messiah.  But  this 
is  no  objection  to  the  view  already  stated  ;  for,  as  Kliefoth 
remarks,  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  is  often  spoken  of  as  the 
coming  of  Jahaveh.  If  again,  at  the  close  of  the  chapter,  the 
prophet  represents  the  character  of  a  foolish  shepherd,  that 
foolish  shepherd  is,  from  the  stand-point  of  the  vision,  re- 
garded as  in  reality  raised  up  by  Jahaveh  himself,  a  judgment 
permitted  and,  therefore,  sent  forth  by  God.  In  both  cases 
the  prophet  must  be  regarded  as  acting  as  the  representative 
of  Jahaveh. 

This  view  is,  on  the  whole,  the  most  consistent  with  the 
statements  of  the  text.  It  is  unnecessary  to  discuss  the 
question  whether  the  symbolical  actions  of  the  prophet  are 
to  be  viewed  merely  as  the  form  into  which  the  prophet 
himself  cast  the  revelation  given  to  him  by  God,  the  more 
vividly  to  depict  the  impression  communicated  to  his  own 
mind  ;  or  whether  the  prophet  describes  a  vision  which  he 
saw,  and  in  which  he  himself  appeared  to  perform  the  actions 
here  set  forth  as  done  by  him.  For  though  by  the  light  of 
the  New  Testament,  we  are  led  to  regard  the  prophecy  as 
Messianic  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word,  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  prophet  himself  acted  consciously  as  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  Messiah,  the  great  servant  of  Jahaveh. 

The  prophet  describes  the  sheep,  which  he,  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  Jahaveh,  was  commanded  to  feed,  as  "  the  sheep 
of  slaughter."  The  phrase  may  signify  either  a  flock  which 
is  already  being  slaughtered,  or  one  marked  out  for  slaughter 
at  a  future  day.  Both  interpretations  of  the  text  have  found 
defenders.  The  former,  however,  appears  to  be  the  sense 
intended.  It  best  harmonises  with  the  statement  which 
follows:  "  Whose  buyers  slay  them  and  are  not  punished,  and 
those  who  sell  them  say.  Blessed  be  Jahaveh  that  I  am  rich, 
and  their  shepherds  spare  them  not."  "  To  feed  a  flock " 
is   always   used  in  Scripture  in  the  sense  of  guarding  and 

X 


306  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  fCh.  xi.  i-8. 

protecting  it  in  all  its  needs  and  difficulties  (Ps.  xxiii.  and 
John  X.),  and  cannot  well  be  understood  in  the  signification 
of  preparing  it  for  slaughter.  Though  the  flock  may  be 
intended  for  slaughter,  its  ultimate  destination  is  not  that 
which  is  thought  of  when  we  speak  of  a  shepherd  feeding 
his  flock.  The  shepherd's  care  over  and  attention  to  the 
wants  of  the  flock  is  that  to  which  attention  is  directed, 
not  the  destination  of  its  several  members.  Nor  can  the 
command  to  feed  the  sheep  be  understood  to  mean,  "  feed 
the  flock  for  the  last  time  "  (Kliefoth).  In  the  course  of  the 
prophecy  the  ruin  of  the  flock  is,  no  doubt,  depicted.  But 
the  ruin  which  ultimately  overwhelmed  the  sheep  is  described 
as  the  result  of  their  own  ungracious  conduct  towards  the 
good  Shepherd,  not  as  the  consequence  of  any  Divine 
decree.  The  commission  which  the  shepherd  received  was 
"  to  feed  the  flock  "  given  over  to  his  care,  and  by  so  doing 
to  rescue  the  sheep  from  the  hands  of  those  who  were  slay- 
ing them  for  their  own  selfish  purposes.  It  was  on  account 
of  this  latter  fact  that  the  sheep  are  styled  "  the  sheep  of 
slaughter,"  that  is,  the  sheep  that  are  being  slaughtered 
instead  of  being  fed. 

In  the  early  part  of  his  prophecy  the  prophet  speaks  of  the 
harsh  treatment  which  Israel  received  at  the  hands  of  those 
who  ruled  over  them.  The  people  of  the  covenant  had  been 
tyrannized  over,  and  trampled  down  by  their  oppressors. 
They  who  ruled  over  them  had  indeed  caused  them  to  howl 
(Isa.  Hi.  5).  But  who  were  the  oppressors  to  whom  reference 
is  made  ?  Were  they  the  foreign  rulers  who  bore  sway 
over  Israel,  and  into  whose  hands  that  people  had  been  sold 
for  their  sin  .-*  Or  were  the  oppressors  referred  to  the  native 
kings  or  rulers  over  Israel .''  Hengstenberg  and  others  think 
that  the  native  rulers  are  signified.  But  foreign  oppressors 
are  alluded  to  in  the  passage  quoted  from  the  book  of  Isaiah, 
and  this  seems  to  be  the  most  natural  meaning  of  the  expres- 


Ch.  xi.  i-S.]     THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.  307 

sions  used  in  the  present  passage.  "  I  will  not  spare  any 
more  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  "  (Ylh^H),  among  whom  the 
flock  had  been  located,  and  under  whose  power  the  sheep 
were  placed  ;  "  and  behold  I  will  deliver  over  mankind 
(D"IJ<n"n^<),  each  into  the  hand  of  his  neighbour,  and  into 
the  hand  of  his  king  (both  nouns  are  used  distributively),^ 
and  they  shall  break  down  {i.e.  lay  waste)  the  earth,  and  I  will 
not  deliver  out  of  their  hand."  The  breaking  up  of  the  peace 
and  quiet  of  the  nations,  on  account  of  their  oppression  of  the 
people  of  the  covenant,  is  the  fact  here  alluded  to,  as  it  was  that 
taught  in  the  first  vision  which  Zechariah  had  seen,  probably 
many  years  before.  God  would  punish  the  nations  for  their 
cruelty  towards  his  own  people,  by  permitting  civil  wars  to 
break  out  in  the  several  lands  which  belonged  to  them. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  different  meaning  has  been  assigned 
to  the  whole  passage.  "  The  inhabitants  of  the  land  "  have 
been  understood,  as  abstractly  considered  is  quite  possible,  in 
the  sense  of  the  people  of  the  land  of  Palestine.  The  particle 
"  for "  (O)  may  refer  to  the  command  to  feed  the  flock 
(which  occurs  in  verse  4),  or  may  be  considered  as  assigning 
the  reason  why  the  nation  was  given  over  into  the  hand  of 
the  destroyers.  But  there  are  serious  objections  to  this  view, 
the  more  it  is  considered  in  detail.  The  expression  "  the  in- 
habitants of  the  land  "  can  scarcely  be  understood  to  signify 
only  the  rulers  of  the  people,  and  cannot  on  the  other  hand 
be  regarded  as  identical  with  "  the  flock  of  slaughter,"  for,  as 
Keil  observes,  in  such  a  case  "  feed  "  might  be  regarded  as  an 
equivalent  to  "  prepare  for  slaughter." 

The  devastation  of  the  land  depicted  in  the  opening  verses 
was  no  uncommon  event  in  the  various  struggles  of  which 
Palestine  was  the  theatre.     But  inasmuch  as  they  into  whose 

^  The  word  "f3?P,  lit  "his  king"  is  evidently  to  be  understood  distributively, 
just  as  the  term  -inrT!)  ^^  his  neighbour,"  vfhich.  precedes  it.  It  can  scarcely  be 
understood  in  this  connexion  to  refer  to  a  king  of  the  earth  or  the  world,  common 
to  all,  such  as  the  Roman  emperor,  according  to  Hengstenberg's  explanation. 


308  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  7. 

hands  Israel  was  delivered  had  acted  in  every  way  a  purely 
selfish  part,  and  had  slaughtered  the  sheep  they  should  have 
tended,  Jahaveh  himself  determined  to  act  the  part  of  a 
shepherd  to  his  people  and  to  avenge  them  of  their  adver- 
saries. This  he  would  do  by  causing  civil  wars  to  break  out 
among  the  Gentile  nations,  permitting  them  to  be  the  instru- 
ments of  punishing  one  another,  and  also  by  allowing  their 
kings  and  rulers  to  rule  tyranically  over  the  several  peoples. 

In  feeding  again  his  people  like  a  shepherd — for  Jahaveh 
had  been  of  old  "the  Shepherd  of  Israel"  (Gen.  xlix.  24; 
Ps.  Ixxx.  2,  verse  i  in  E.  V.,  Ixxvii.  21,  verse  20  in  E.  V.) — God 
determined  to  use  the  staff  of  beauty  and  the  staff  of  bands  ; 
that  is,  God  promised  to  restore  again  the  old  beauty,  both 
external  and  internal,  of  the  Levitical  dispensation.  Com- 
pare the  wish  of  David  "  to  behold  the  beauty  of  the  Lord 
and  to  enquire  in  his  temple  "  (Ps.  xxvii.  4),  and  his  prayer, 
"  let  the  beauty  of  the  Lord  our  God  be  upon  us  "(Ps.  xc.  17).' 
The  continuance  of  that  beauty  was  a  sign  of  God's  favour 
and  grace  towards  them.  The  staff  therefore  indicated  that  the 
favour  of  the  Lord  was  with  his  people.  The  law  of  God  was 
to  be  their  rule.  They  should  be  united  as  one  people,  with 
none  of  that  rivalry  between  its  several  portions  which  had 
embittered  the  national  life  of  Israel  since  the  days  of  Reho- 
boam.  The  wilfulness  of  the  people  themselves,  and  their 
distaste  and  loathing  of  God's  guidance,  should  ultimately 
cause  the  staff  of  beauty  to  be  broken,  the  beauty  to  be 
marred.  Still,  after  the  staff  of  beauty  should  be  broken, 
and  the  Church  of  Israel  should  no  longer  be  a  Church  well- 
pleasing  in  the  eyes  of  its  Lord,  God  should  still  feed  his 
people  with  the  staff  of  bands,  and  they  would  exist  as  one 
people,  until  their  inveterate  obstinacy  and  their  final  rcjec- 

1  Dyb  is  used  in  the  sense  of  pleasantness  in  Prov.  iii.  17,  xv.  26,  xvi.  24. 
These  passages,  with  that  in  Zech.  xi.  7, 10,  and  those  alluded  to  above,  are  the 
only  places  where  the  word  occurs. 


Ch.  xi.  7.]       THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.  309 

tion  of  the  Good  Shepherd  should  cause  him  also  to  break 
the  staff  of  bands,  and  the  national  covenant  of  God  with 
Israel  would  then  be  set  aside. 

The  prophecy  so  explained  is  in  nowise  contradictory,  as 
Kliefoth  notes,  to  the  prophecies  of  the  two  preceding  chapters. 
On  the  contrary,  it  supplements  those  predictions  in  a  remark- 
able manner.  Victory  over  foreign  foes  was  promised  in  the 
previous  predictions — the  same  promise  is  also  virtually 
given  in  this.  For  they  who  are  tended  and  fed  by  Jahaveh 
shall  want  no  good  thing,  and,  therefore,  they  who  oppress 
his  people  must  necessarily  be  punished.  Thus  the  prophecy 
may  be  regarded  as  a  confirmation  of  the  former  in  that  very 
particular.  The  prophecy  of  the  eleventh  chapter  commences, 
as  that  of  chapter  ix.,  with  the  description  of  an  invasion  of  the 
country  which  should  sweep  from  the  north  to  the  south  of 
the  land.  Both  prophecies  speak  of  a  people  marked  out  for 
slaughter  by  man,  but  protected  and  preserved  by  God.  In 
both  there  is  a  vision  of  the  beauty  of  Israel,  and  of  Ephraim 
and  Judah  being  united  as  one  people  by  the  staff  of  "  bands," 
or  "  binders."  The  picture  is  quite  consistent  with  the  build- 
ing of  the  temple,  and  the  final  restoration  of  Jerusalem  "  in 
troublous  times."  The  promise  in  the  one  prediction  is  to 
the  effect  that  the  people  would  be  delivered  from  the  power 
of  any  taskmaster  (Ii^31^);  in  the  other,  one  evil  shepherd 
after  another  is  represented  as  successively  deposed.  The 
prophecy  of  the  eleventh  chapter  thus  predicts  great  blessings. 
It  has,  no  doubt,  another  and  a  darker  side.  It  contains  a 
solemn  warning  that  if  in  a  day  of  grace  and  blessing  the 
people  would  not  indeed  have  the  Lord  to  be  their  shepherd, 
that  "  beauty "  which  they  saw  reviving  among  them  would 
fade  away  like  a  flower,  and  the  union  of  the  tribes  of  the 
covenant  people  which  was  to  take  place,  instead  of  the 
fatal  division  which  had  so  long  existed  between  the  people 
of  Ephraim  and  Judah,  would  be  finally  broken  up.      Thus 


310  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS   rROPIIECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  7. 

the  prophecy  starts  from  the  prophet's  own  present,  though 
it  reaches  onward  to  a  far  distant  period.  It  does  not,  as 
Hengstenberg  and  others  think,  spring  without  warning  or 
intimation  over  the  bounds  of  the  prophet's  own  period,  and 
depict  the  conquest  of  Palestine  by  the  Romans,  then  far 
distant,  or  the  civil  wars  of  the  Jews  which  preceded  that 
terrible  catastrophe,  although  it  may  be  regarded  as  not 
completely  fulfilled  until  that  period. 

The  prophecy  of  the  eleventh  chapter  is  to  be  considered  as 
referring  to  the  same  period  as  that  embraced  in  the  ninth  and 
tenth  chapters  ;  that  is,  it  commences  with  the  same  period 
and  reaches  onward  to  the  time  of  the  Messiah.  If  this 
fact  be  borne  in  mind,  several  passages,  which  otherwise  would 
present  peculiar  difficulties,  can  be  easily  explained.  The 
judgments  alluded  to  in  verse  6  are  according  to  this  view 
judgments  upon  the  nations  in  general,  more  especially 
affecting  those  who  had  rigorously  oppressed  the  people  of  the 
covenant,  characterised  as  "the  flock  of  slaughter."  While 
God's  judgments  are  poured  upon  the  Gentile  world,  and 
the  quiet  which  the  nations  had  enjoyed  is  represented  as 
broken  up  by  civil  wars,  internal  disorder,  and  the  despotism 
of  cruel  tyrants,  the  flock  which  had  been  previously  cruelly 
treated  by  the  Gentile  nations,  is  depicted  as  fed  and  tended 
by  God  himself  That  flock  might  be  poor  and  despised,  but 
it  was  made  to  lie  down  in  green  pastures  and  led  beside 
still  waters.  It  was  tended  with  a  staff  of  "beauty,"  or 
"  favour,"  and  with  a  staff  of  "  bands."  The  nation  of  Israel 
was  in  favour  with  God,  and  they  were  at  peace  among  them- 
selves. Thus  passed  away  those  times,  which,  when  com- 
pared with  other  periods,  might  be  termed  days  of  quiet. 
Those  times  were  not  without  their  special  difficulties  and  their 
special  disorders  and  disturbances,  but  withal  they  were  days 
of  growth  and  progress.  The  colony  of  the  Jews  increased 
in  the  land  to  which  they  had  been  so  mercifully  restored. 


Ch.  xi.  7-]       THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.         3  II 

City  after  city  was  filled  with  a  Jewish  population,  while  the 
Gentile  inhabitants  of  the  land  to  a  very  large  extent  became 
Jewish  in  their  habits,  and  Jews  in  religion,  and  were  no 
longer  separated  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  of  which 
in  accordance  with  its  fundamental  laws  they  became  when 
circumcised  an  integral  part.  A  large  number  of  immigrants 
from  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  must  have  joined  the  Jewish 
colony  during  the  long  stretch  of  time  which  elapsed  between 
the  days  of  Zerubbabel,  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  and  the  days 
of  Ezra,  the  great  scribe,  who  led  a  fresh  body  of  Jewish  exiles 
back  to  the  holy  city.  For  the  latter  must  not  be  regarded 
as  the  last  band  of  exiles  who  returned,  though  it  was  by  far 
the  most  important  which  immigrated  thither  after  the  first 
large  body  of  exiles  headed  by  Zerubbabel.  Fourteen  years 
more  bring  us  to  the  date  of  the  governorship  of  Nehemiah, 
and  to  the  rebuilding  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem.  Many  years 
later  the  prophet  Malachi  appeared  on  the  scene.  We  know 
very  little  of  the  state  of  the  Jewish  commonwealth  at 
that  period,  so  fragmentary  after  all  are  the  allusions  made 
to  it  in  history.  But  in  the  prophecies  of  Malachi,  amid  the 
very  quiet  of  the  times,  the  growing  deadness  of  the  people 
in  matters  of  religion  can  be  easily  traced,  and  the  prevalent 
spirit  of  worldliness  be  seen.  Still,  however,  Israel  as  a  flock 
was  guided  by  the  loving  hand  of  Jahaveh.  The  warnings 
addressed  to  them  by  Malachi,  his  earnest  denunciations  of 
sin,  his  exhortations  to  repentance,  his  prophecies  concerning 
the  coming  of  the  Messiah  and  the  solemn  character  of  tha'" 
advent,  were  all  so  many  proofs  that  the  Lord  had  not  for- 
gotten his  people.  The  protection  which  Divine  providence 
so  graciously  extended  in  one  very  notable  crisis  even  to 
those  who  had  voluntarily  chosen  to  remain  in  exile,  is  related 
in  the  book  of  Esther.  The  wonderful  protection  afforded 
also  to  them  by  Divine  power  during  the  great  contest  in 
which,  at  a  later  period,  the  Persian  empire  was  overthrown. 


312  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  S. 

has  been  specially  alluded  to  in  the  preceding  prophecy. 
All  this  long  period  is  summed  up  in  the  present  prophecy 
in  the  comprehensive  sentence,  "and  I  fed  the  flock." 
Though  the  land  of  Judaea,  at  the  close  of  the  period  referred 
to,  formed  part  of  the  theatre  in  which  the  bloody  contest 
between  the  kings  of  Syria  and  Egypt  took  place,  the  Jewish 
nation  on  the  whole  fared  well  under  the  gracious  protection 
of  the  Most  High. 

It  is  in  these  times  that  we  must  look  for  the  cutting  off  of 
"the  three  shepherds,"  spoken  of  in  the  eighth  verse.  The 
article  points  back  to  the  mention  made  of  "shepherds" 
in  verse  5,  and  those  shepherds,  as  explained  in  the  light  of 
verse  6,  appear  to  be  heathen  rulers.  If  we  are  right  in  con- 
sidering the  prophecies  of  chapters  ix.  and  x.  to  be  synchro- 
nous with  that  of  chapter  xi.,  and  to  traverse  in  some  respects 
the  same  ground,  the  cutting  off  of  these  three  heathen  rulers 
must  be  looked  for  in  the  midst  of  the  war  of  "  the  sons  of 
Zion  "  against  "  the  sons  of  Greece."  That  war  was  none 
other  than  the  noble  struggle  of  the  Jews  for  their  re- 
ligion and  their  liberty  under  the  leadership  of  the  Macca- 
bean  chieftains.  If  it  were  not  (i)  that  the  use  of  the  article 
seems  to  compel  us  to  look  for  the  cutting  off  of  certain 
heathen  rulers,  and  not  of  any  Jewish  chieftains  ;  and  {2) 
that  the  cutting  off  of  the  three  shepherds  is  evidently  re- 
garded by  the  prophet  not  as  an  act  of  judgment  exercised 
upon  the  covenant  people  on  account  of  their  sin,  but  as  an 
act  of  gracious  interference  on  behalf  of  that  people,  and 
a  proof  of  the  protecting  love  of  the  Shepherd  of  Israel ; 
we  would  naturally  think  that  the  three  great  Maccabee 
leaders,  Judas,  Jonathan,  and  Simon,  were  signified,  who, 
after  performing  marvellous  exploits  of  valour,  were  suc- 
cessively removed  in  times  when  their  services  seemed  to 
be  peculiarly  required.  But  these  reasons  lead  us  to  look  for 
the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  rather  in   the  cutting  off  of 


Ch.  xi.  S.]      THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.  313 

the  enemies  of  the  Jewish  people,  in  the  removal  of  three 
noted  oppressors  of  the  people  of  the  Lord  ;  and  so  we  are 
naturally  driven  to  think  of  the  three  kings  of  the  Gentiles, 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  Antiochus  Eupator,  and  Demetrius  I., 
whose  armies  were  all  successively  worsted  and  broken  by 
the  Maccabee  chieftains,  upheld  as  those  heroes  were  by  the 
mighty  power  of  God,  who  enabled  them  again  and  again 
to  defeat  the  mighty  hosts  of  their  enemies  with  armies  far 
inferior  in  numbers,  material,  and  organization. 

The  difficulty  which  lies  in  the  way  of  accepting  this 
solution  of  the  passage  lies  in  the  statement  that  the  three 
shepherds  would  be  cut  off  in  one  month.  The  expression 
has  been  understood  by  some  to  signify  an  ordinary  month 
of  thirty  days.  This,  if  correct,  would  necessarily  be  fatal  to 
our  exposition.  The  term  has,  however,  been  explained  by 
Kimchi,  Calvin,  Drusius,  Umbreit,  etc.,  to  signify  an  indefinitely 
short  period,  which  would  agree  well  enough  with  this  inter- 
pretation. Hosea  v.  7  is  adduced  by  Kimchi  and  Drusius  as 
an  instance  of  such  a  signification,  but  that  passage  is  not  a 
satisfactory  example.  Von  Hofmann  considers  the  month  to 
signify  a  prophetic  period  of  thirty  prophetic  days,  each  of 
seven  literal  years'  duration.  As  such  it  would  be  equivalent 
to  210  years.  In  support  of  this  theory  he  refers  to  Dan.  ix.  24. 
But  "  the  seventy  weeks  "  of  Daniel  are  seventy  weeks  of 
years,  i.e.,  490  years,  "  each  day  for  a  year "  (Ezek.  iv,  6), 
and  on  that  principle  the  one  month  could  only  signify  thirty 
years.  No  instance  can  be  cited  in  which  a  prophetic  day 
is  equivalent  to  a  Sabbatic  period  of  seven  years.  Von 
Hofmann  (with  whom  Schlier  agrees)  has  interpreted  the 
"  three  shepherds "  as  the  three  empires,  the  Babylonian, 
Medo-Persian,  and  Macedonian,  which  lasted  215  years, 
reckoning  from  the  captivity  of  Babylon  to  the  death  of 
Alexander  the  Great.  As  to  the  slight  discrepancy  of  five 
years,  it  is  of  little  consequence  in  reckoning  Sabbatic  periods, 


3^4  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.8. 

five  years  being  less  than  one  such  period.  But  the  objection 
to  this  theory  is  that  no  instance  of  such  a  usage  can  be 
adduced.  Moreover,  it  is  not  in  accordance  with  fact,  or  with 
Daniel's  prophecy  in  chapter  viii.,  to  view  the  death  of  Alex- 
ander as  the  destruction  of  the  Macedonian  empire,  which 
continued  to  exist,  though  no  longer  as  a  united  empire,  under 
the  rule  of  the  Diadochoi  or  successors  of  Alexander. 

Kliefoth,  Kohlcr  and  Keil,  have  proposed  another  explana- 
tion of  the  month,  considered  as  containing  three  times  ten 
days,  the  number  ten  being  the  symbol  of  completion.  Keil 
supposes  two  things  to  have  been  signified  by  the  statement : 
first,  that  a  shepherd  was  cut  off  every  ten  days,  and,  secondly, 
that  the  whole  three  were  cut  off  in  one  month.  The  latter 
fact,  according  to  his  view,  signifies  that  the  destruction  of  one 
shepherd  followed  immediately  after  that  of  the  other  ;  the 
former  indicates  that  each  individual  shepherd  was  not  cut  off 
until  the  full  time  allotted  to  him  had  expired.  This  explan- 
ation appears  highly  artificial.  Kliefoth,  on  the  other  hand, 
considers  that  the  three  periods  are  included  in  one  term,  to 
indicate  the  comparatively  short  duration  of  the  period  during 
which  the  three  monarchies  (which  he  regards  as  represented 
by  the  three  shepherds)  should  endure.  He  thinks,  moreover, 
that  the  thirty  days,  included  under  the  term  "one  month," 
have  a  direct  reference  to  the  thirty  shekels  of  silver  after- 
wards mentioned  as  offered  to  the  good  shepherd  in  reward 
for  his  work.  The  last  idea  is  peculiarly  fanciful  ;  for  it  is 
evident  that  the  good  shepherd  is  represented  in  the  prophecy 
as  tending  the  flock  for  a  much  longer  period  than  the  month, 
and  his  destruction  of  the  three  evil  shepherds  is  only  one 
remarkable  instance  of  his  care  of  the  flock  committed  to  his 
charge.  The  extirpation  of  those  shepherds  is  mentioned, 
because,  after  such  a  special  proof  of  the  shepherd's  love  and 
care,  the  ingratitude  of  the  flock  appears  in  a  more  striking 
light,  inasmuch   as   they,   notwithstanding   his    watchfulness 


Ch.  xi.  8.]       THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.  3  I  5 

over  them,  are  represented  as  loathing  that  care,  and,  conse- 
quently, the  shepherd  became  weary  of  tending  them.  This 
latter  fact  is  opposed  to  the  explanation  of  the  passage 
given  by  Dr.  Pusey,  namely,  that  the  three  shepherds  in- 
dicate the  Jewish  "priests,  judges  and  lawyers,"  who,  having 
"  delivered  to  the  cross  the  Saviour  and  Redeemer  of  all, 
were  taken  away  then  in  one  month,  Nisan,  A.D,  33.  The 
three  offices,  King,  Divine  Teacher,  Priest,  were  to  be  united 
in  Christ :  they  might  have  been  held  under  him  :  those  who 
rejected  them  in  him  forfeited  them  themselves.  These  then 
he  made  to  disappear,  effaced  them  from  the  earth."  The 
good  shepherd,  however,  did  not  break  his  pastoral  staves 
until  a  considerable  time  had  elapsed  after  the  extirpation  of 
the  three  evil  shepherds,  nor  until  the  flock,  regardless  of  that 
act  of  love,  manifested  their  loathing  for  him.  Then,  but  not 
till  then,  did  the  shepherd  ask  for  his  hire,  and  then  did  the 
flock  offer  to  him  the  paltry  sum  of  thirty  pieces  of  silver  as 
remuneration  for  his  toil.  But  this  latter  fact  took  place 
after  the  cutting  off  of  the  three  shepherds.  Consequently 
that  event  cannot  be  supposed  to  refer  to  the  extinction  of 
the  Jewish  offices  by  Christ's  death  upon  the  cross,  and  this 
attempt  to  explain  the  month  as  a  literal  month  of  thirty 
days  must  be  considered  as  a  failure. 

Hengstenberg  clearly  saw  the  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this 
explanation  occasioned  by  the  fact,  that  the  extermination  of 
the  three  shepherds  is  mentioned  as  preceding  the  breaking  of 
the  shepherd's  staves.  He  tried  to  obviate  it  by  explain- 
ing the  cutting  off  of  the  shepherds  to  indicate  simply  their 
virtual  deposition  from  office,  "  the  tacit  assertion  of  their 
non-existence,"  which  was  to  be  in  due  time  followed  by  their 
outward  removal.  He  considers  that  the  later  incidents  of  the 
prophecy  describe  the  casting  away  of  the  Jewish  people 
consequent  on  their  rejection  of  our  Lord.  This  interpreta- 
tion as  a  whole  v/ill  be  noticed  presently.     But  we  must  here 


3l6  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  8. 

note  his  interpretation  of  the  "one  month."  He  maintains 
that  something  more  is  signified  by  this  expression  than  an 
indefinitely  short  space  of  time.  If  that  were  all,  as  Hitzig 
observes,  "an  hour"  or  "  a  day  "  would  have  been  a  more 
appropriate  expression.  In  proof  of  this  Hcngstenberg 
appeals  to  chap.  iii.  9.  He  considers  that  the  "month"  is 
to  be  reckoned  from  the  commencement  of  the  shepherd's 
ministry,  and  that  the  expression  signifies  a  period  long  in- 
deed when  compared  with  one  day,  but  short  when  contrasted 
with  other  periods  of  time.  Its  use  "  shows  that  the  exter- 
mination of  the  three  shepherds  is  not  to  be  viewed  as  a 
single  act  like  the  expiation,  but  as  a  continuous  act,  which 
occupied  some  time."  Hcngstenberg  accordingly  regards 
the  month  as  representing  the  period  during  which  Christ 
endeavoured  by  repeated  efforts  to  deliver  the  lost  sheep  of 
the  house  of  Israel  from  the  spiritual  tyranny  of  their  blind 
and  corrupt  guides. 

All  the  attempts,  as  we  shall  presently  show,  made  by 
various  scholars  of  the  modern  critical  school  to  explain  the 
term  "month"  in  its  literal  sense  must  be  regarded  as  failures. 
The  objection  to  the  explanation  of  the  term  as  indicating 
either  an  indefinitely  short  period,  or  a  period  of  time  short 
when  compared  with  the  whole  time  spoken  of  in  the  pro- 
phecy, but  long  when  contrasted  with  that  indicated  by  "  a 
day,"  is  that  no  satisfactory  instances  of  either  signification 
can  be  brought  forward.  Either  the  one  or  the  other  of  these 
explanations  would  suit  the  exposition  which  we  have  sug- 
gested, namely,  that  the  period  of  the  ]\Iaccabees  is  that  re- 
ferred to,  when,  by  means  of  the  valorous  deeds  of  Judas, 
Jonathan  and  Simon,  the  three  evil  shepherds,  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  Antiochus  Eupator  and  Demetrius,  were  succes- 
sively cut  off,  because  they  sought  to  devour  the  flock  which 
they  as  "  shepherds  of  the  people  "  should  have  fed.^ 

'  It   is  well   known  that  the  cud  of  Antiochus  Epipliancs   in    Persia  w.as   a 


Ch.  xi.  8.]       THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.         317 

But  the  "month"  can  be  more  satisfactorily  explained  as  a 
symbolical  term.  With  the  books  of  Ezekiel  and  Daniel 
before  him  (believing,  as  we  do,  the  genuineness  of  the  latter), 
Zechariah  could  not  have  been  unacquainted  with  the  sym- 
bolical treatment  of  numbers.  Days,  weeks  and  years,  are 
used  as  symbolical  designations  in  Ezek.  iv.  4-6  and  Dan. 
ix.  24-47,  as  well  as  in  other  places.  "  One  month,"  if  ex- 
plained on  the  principle  made  use  of  in  these  and  similar 
passages,  would  signify  a  period  of  about  thirty  years.  We 
say  about  thirty  years,  for  if  that  number  was  meant  to  be 
taken  strictly,  the  number  thirty  would  have  appeared  in  the 
arithmetical  symbol  as  thirty  days.  A  period  of  about 
thirty  years  embraces  all  the  most  remarkable  events  affect- 
ing the  Jewish  Church  and  nation,  from  B.C.  172,  when 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  made  his  terrible  attack  on  the  holy 
city  and  desecrated  its  sacred  temple,  up  to  the  year  B.C.  141, 
when  the  three  evil  alien  shepherds  of  the  Jewish  nation  were 
cut  off,  and  the  last  trace  of  Syrian  supremacy  was  removed 
by  the  expulsion  of  the  Syrian  garrison  from  its  fortress  in 
Jerusalem.  Within  this  period  the  great  exploits  of  the 
Maccabees  occurred,  and  the  great   salvation   was   wrought 


miserable  one.  His  successor,  Antiochus  Eupator,  under  the  advice  of  Lysias 
attempted  the  subjugation  of  Judsea,  and  with  partial  success,  notwithstanding  the 
heroic  efforts  of  Judas  Maccabeus.  He  was  put  to  death  after  a  short  reign  by 
Demetrius  I.,  who  claimed  to  be  the  rightful  heir  to  the  throne,  but  at  the  time  of 
Antiochus's  accession  was  a  hostage  in  Rome.  During  the  reign  of  Demetrius  some 
of  the  greatest  victories  of  Judas  Maccabeus  were  obtained,  notably  that  of  Caphar- 
salama.  Demetrius  I.  was  in  his  turn  overthrown  by  the  impostor  Alexander  Balas, 
with  whom  Jonathan  entered  into  an  alliance.  Demetrius  Nicator,  who  succeeded 
Alexander  Balas  after  his  overthrow  by  Ptolemy,  at  first  made  a  treaty  with 
Jonathan.  When  Jonathan  transferred  his  friendship  to  Antiochus  Theos, 
Demetrius  II.  had  to  flee.  Tryphon,  who  had  raised  Antiochus  to  the  throne,  after- 
wards acted  perfidiously  towards  Jonathan  and  threw  him  into  prison.  But  Simon 
succeeded  his  brother  in  command,  took  Jerusalem,  and  for  many  years  the  country 
enjoyed  comparative  quiet.  See  i  Mace.  xiv.  9,  ff  The  three  kings,  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  Antiochus  Eupator,  and  Demetrius  I.,  were  the  only  kings  who  in 
this  period  were  able  to  rule  oppressively  over  the  Jews,  and  they  were  successively 
cut  off  in  consequence  of  that  oppressive  conduct. 


3l8  ZECHARIAH   A\D   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  8. 

whereby  the  Lord  delivered  his  people  (comp.  i  Sam.  xiv.  45). 
The  three  shepherds  who  exhibited  their  evil  character  by- 
hostility  to  God^s  truth  and  people  were  (after  a  brief  period, 
in  which  their  true  character  was  brought  to  light)  succes- 
sively rooted  out  and  cut  off  in  that  eventful  prophetic 
"  month,"  during  which  the  arm  of  the  Lord  was  so  strikingly 
revealed.  Within  the  bounds  of  that  "  month "  those  shep- 
herds were  permitted  to  manifest  their  malice  and  hatred 
against  the  Church  and  people  of  Jahaveh,  and  within  its 
bounds  they  were  successively  swept  away. 

It  has,  indeed,  been  often  asserted  that  in  the  passage  just 
considered  one  of  the  clearest  proofs  is  to  be  found  that  the 
second  part  of  Zechariah  must  have  been  written  previously 
to  the  Babylonish  captivity.  But  the  attempts  to  demonstrate 
this  point  have  been  singularly  inconclusive.  Dr.  Samuel 
Davidson  maintains  that  the  three  evil  shepherds  who  were 
cut  off  in  the  space  of  one  month  were  "most  probably 
Zachariah,  son  of  Jeroboam  II.,  his  murderer  Shallum,  who 
reigned  but  a  month,  and  a  third  unknown  usurper  whose 
downfall  speedily  took  place,  but  whom  the  history  in 
2  Kings  XV.  10-13  passed  over."  This  is  a  conjecture  which 
Davidson  has  borrowed  from  Maurcr  and  Bunsen.  It  is 
not  only  unsupported  by  positive  evidence  (as  is  admitted), 
but  it  is  absolutely  contradicted  by  the  narrative  in  2  Kings 
XV.  10-14,  where  Zachariah  is  expressly  said  to  have  been 
murdered  by  Shallum,  and  Shallum  by  Menahem.  There  is 
therefore  no  room  whatever  left  for  "  the  third  unknown 
usurper." 

Hitzig  seeks  to  get  rid  of  the  difficulty  in  another  way. 
He  explains  the  phrase  "  I  removed  the  three  shepherds  in 
one  month  "  as  equivalent  to  "  I  removed  the  three  shepherds 
which  were  in  one  month,"  that  is,  who  within  that  short 
space  of  time  exercised  tlicir  authority.  He,  therefore,  con- 
siders that  the  prophet  refers   to  the   three  kings,  Zachariah, 


Ch.  xi.  8.]     THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.  319 

Shallum  and  Menahem,  which  three  kings  in  about  the  space 
of  one  month  sat  upon  the  throne  of  Israel.  The  omission 
of  the  relative  pronoun  in  the  original  is  by  no  means  a  fatal 
objection  to  this  interpretation.  Hitzig  refers  to  examples  in 
Exod.  xxxiv.  31 ;  Isa.  xxiii.  17  ;  Jer.  xviii.  23  ;  Ezek,  xxvi.  20; 
Ps.  Ixxvii.  6.  But  the  explanation  is  too  artificial.  Thenius, 
however,  has  adopted  this  view.^  In  anticipation  of  the 
objections  which  might  be  urged  against  it,  he  argues  that 
the  month  during  which  Shallum  reigned  cannot  be  regarded 
as  "a  full  month."  The  expression,  however  (D''P''  HT),  used 
with  respect  to  Shallum's  reign  in  2  Kings  xv.  13,  is  evidence 
directly  contrary  to  Thenius's  view.  That  phrase  has  been 
rightly  translated  by  our  Authorised  Version  as  "  a  full 
month  "  (see  Deut.  xxi.  13,  and  compare  the  equivalent  ex- 
pression D'^p''  li^in  in  Gen.  xxix.  14;  Numb.  xi.  20,  21).  The 
three  kings  alluded  to  did  not  ascend  the  throne  of  Israel 
within  "  one  month  ; "  the  events  which  occurred  occupied 
more  than  double  that  time.  Still  less  is  it  true  that  they 
were  cut  off  within  that  period,  Hitzig  discloses  the  weak- 
ness of  his  position  in  his  attempts  to  answer  this  latter 
objection.  He  argues  that  Menahem  was  not  recognised  at 
first  as  king  of  Israel,  and  certainly  not  by  the  prophetic- 
order.  In  proof  of  this  statement  he  appeals  to  2  Kings 
XV.  16,  19,  which  is  no  proof  whatever.  It  is,  therefore,  clear 
that  the  passage  in  Zechariah  can  by  no  means  be  brought 
into  agreement  with  the  history  of  the  times  referred  to. 

Moreover,  the  verb  used  in  Zechariah  points  most  distinctly 
to  a  violent  removal,  as  is  seen  by  its  use  in  Exod.  xxiii.  23, 
that  is,  to  a  destruction  of  some  kind  or  other.  Even 
assigning  to  it  the  meaning  which  Hitzig  has  suggested, 
some  special  act  of  Divine  providence  must  be  alluded  to  by 
which  Menahem  was  no  longer  permitted  to  be  a  ruler  over 

^  In  his  commentary  on  Die  Bikher  da-  Konige,  contained  in  the  Kurzgcfasstes 
exeg.  Handbuch  ziiin  A.T.,  2  Kings  xv.  13. 


320  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  8. 

Israel.  But  Mcnahcm  was  not  cut  off  by  any  visitation  of 
Providence  ;  after  a  reign  of  ten  years  he  "  slept  with  his 
fathers,"  and  was  succeeded  on  the  throne  by  his  son  Peka- 
hiah.  Ewald  has  proposed  a  strange  conjecture,  based  on  a 
blunder  of  the  LXX.  translators,  who  for  some  cause  did  not 
comprehend  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  "  before  the  people  " 
which  occurs  in  2  Kings  xv.  lo;  namely,  that  Zachariah  was 
succeeded  on  the  throne  by  a  king  named  Kobolam,  and 
Kobolam  by  Shallum.  This  conjecture  has  not  been  accepted 
by  any  critic  of  eminence  save  Dean  Stanley,  who  has  gene- 
rally adopted  all  Ewald's  ideas  as  facts  of  history.  No  place 
is  left  in  the  history  of  the  books  of  the  Kings  for  the  inser- 
tion of  this  fictitious  king  ;  for  Shallum  the  son  of  Jabesh  is 
distinctly  stated  to  have  ascended  the  throne  immediately 
after  the  murder  of  Zachariah  (2  Kings  xv.  10).  No  device 
can  really  conceal  the  fact  that,  in  spite  of  the  confident 
language  used  by  eminent  scholars,  all  attempts  have  failed 
to  demonstrate  that  three  kings  of  Israel  were  violently 
removed,  or  even  successively  followed  one  another,  in  the 
course  of  a  single  month  at  any  period  previous  to  the  exile. 
The  idea,  therefore,  that  the  statement  of  chap.  xi.  8  proves 
that  the  prophecy  was  penned  by  a  writer  previous  to  the 
Babylonish  captivity  is  a  fallacy.^ 

The  second  part  of  this  verse  (xi.  8),  "and  my  soul  was 
wearied  at  them,  and  even  their  soul  loathed  me,"  must  not 
be  considered  as  referring  to  "  the  three  shepherds,"  but  as  a 

'  Many  wild  conjectures  have  been  made  respecting  the  three  shepherds.  They 
have  been  explained  as  Moses,  Aaron  and  Miriam  (Jerome) ;  or  Jehoahaz, 
jehoiakim  and  Zedekiah  (Kimchi)  ;  or  as  Eli  and  his  two  sons  ;  or  Samuel  and 
his  two  sons  (Burger);  or  David,  Adonijah  and  Jo.ib  (Grotius);  or  with  more 
apparent  probability  as  the  three  Maccabees,  Judas,  Jonath.an  and  Simon  (Abar- 
banel);  or  the  three  Roman  emperors,  Galba,  Otho  and  Vitellius  (Calmet);  or  the 
Pharisees,  Sadducees,  and  Essenes  (Lightfoot).  The  explanation  of  the  three 
shepherds  as  the  prophets,  priests  and  kings,  has  been  ado]ited  by  many  com- 
mentators and  has  much  on  its  side,  but  in  our  opinion  it  must  be  rejected  for  the 
reasons  assigned  above. 


Ch.  xi.  9-]      THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  Ills  REJECTION.  32 1 

statement  concerning  "  the  flock  "  in  general  which  had  been 
committed  to  the  shepherd's  care.  Grammatically,  no  doubt, 
the  pronoun  would  more  naturally  be  supposed  to  refer  to 
"the  three  shepherds"  spoken  of  in  the  previous  part  of  the 
verse.  But  by  common  consent  verse  9  must  relate  to  "  the 
sheep  "  themselves,  which  proves  that  the  noun  to  which  the 
pronoun  here  refers  must  be  the  sheep  spoken  of  in  verse  7. 
Moreover,  the  verb  in  the  original  cannot  be  rendered  as  a 
pluperfect,^  as  if  the  second  clause  of  verse  8  referred  to 
some  action  performed  by  the  shepherds  previously  to  their 
having  been  "cut  off."  But  if  we  cannot  translate  "  my  soul 
had  loathed  them,"  still  less  can  the  prophet  be  supposed  to 
speak  of  his  being  wearied  with  the  acts  of  the  shepherds 
after  he  had  actually  cut  them  off.  The  cutting  off  of  the 
three  shepherds  was  an  act  of  God's  lovingkindness  towards 
the  sheep  of  his  pasture,  and  not  an  act  of  judgment  towards 
Israel  as  represented  by  their  rulers.  Hence  Hengstenberg's 
explanation  of  the  words  as  referring  to  the  deposition  of  the 
theological  guides  and  rulers  of  the  Jewish  nation  by  our 
Lord  is  unsatisfactory.  Such  a  deposition  he  considers  as 
formally  pronounced  in  Matt,  xxiii.  2,  3,  a  passage  which  in 
our  opinion  has  quite  the  opposite  signification.  Nor  can  we 
agree  with  Kliefoth  in  supposing  that  God's  displeasure 
against  the  first  three  world-monarchies  is  that  referred  to  by 
the  prophet. 

The  weariness  which  the  good  shepherd  symbolized  by  the 
prophet  gives  expression  to,  did  not  arise  from  any  reluctance 
on  his  part  to  perform  the  task  of  feeding  the  flock  in  con- 
sequence of  the  toil  which  that  ofiice  required.  The  weariness 
exhibited  by  the  shepherd  was  solely  occasioned  by  the  con- 

1  The  imperfects  with  strong  vav,  orvav  conversive,  which  occur  in  verse  8  and 
verse  7  must  all  be  rendered  alike,  and  it  is  more  than  doubtful  whether  this  con- 
struction can  be  used  under  any  circumstances  to  signify  the  pluperfect.  It  is 
clear  it  does  not  in  this  instance.     See  Driver's  Hebrew  Tenses,  §  76.  Obs. 


322  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  xi.  9,  10. 

duct  of  the  sheep.  That  conduct  led  him  to  declare  (verse  9)  : 
"  I  will  not  feed  you  :  that  which  is  dying,  let  it  die;  and  that 
which  is  being  destroyed,  let  it  be  destroyed  ;  and  let  the  rest 
eat  every  one  the  flesh  of  the  other."  Thus  the  care  of  the 
shepherd  over  his  flock  was  in  a  great  measure  to  cease,  and 
the  evils  from  which  he  would  fain  have  delivered  the  sheep 
were  to  come  upon  them,  in  consequence  of  their  loathing  and 
dislike  to  his  gentle  rule.  Hengstenberg  has  well  compared 
with  this  passage  of  Zechariah  that  in  Jer.  xv.  i,  2,  "  Cast  them 
(the  Jewish  people)  out  of  my  sight,  and  let  them  go  forth. 
And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  if  they  say  unto  thee,  Whither 
shall  we  go  forth  ?  then  thou  shalt  tell  them,  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  ;  Such  as  are  for  death,  to  death ;  and  such  as  are  for 
the  sword,  to  the  sword  ;  and  such  as  are  for  the  famine,  to 
the  famine ;  and  such  as  are  for  the  captivity,  to  the  cap- 
tivity." The  passage  in  Isa.  ix.  20  is  a  fitting  parallel  to  the 
second  statement  in  verse  9 — "  And  he  shall  snatch  on  the 
right  hand  and  be  hungry,  and  he  shall  eat  on  the  left  hand, 
and  shall  not  be  satisfied  :  they  shall  eat  every  man  the  flesh 
of  his  own  arm."     Comp.  also  Jer.  xix.  9  ;  Deut.  xxviii.  53. 

The  "  beauty  "  had  indeed  departed  from  the  people  when 
the  high  priesthood  was  made  with  their  consent  a  political 
institution.     When   that  change  was  acquiesced    in   by  the 
nation  generally,  and  no  disposition  exhibited  to  follow  the 
law  of  Moses  in  such  an  essential  particular,  the  "  favour  "  of 
God  was  removed  from  the  people.     The  shepherd,  therefore, 
broke  his  staff  of  beauty,  or  favour,  to  indicate  that  the  cove- 
nant which  Jahaveh  had  made  with  the  nations  was  at  an 
end.    That  covenant  does  not  mean  a  covenant  made  with  the 
nations  for  their  own  good,  but  rather  one  made  with  them 
for  the  good  of  the  people  of  Israel.      For  the  breaking  of 
that  covenant  is  described  as  the  immediate  consequence  of 
the  breaking  of  the  stafi"  of  beauty,  with  which  staff  Israel, 
since  its  restoration,  had  been  tended  by  the  good  shepherd. 


Ch.xi.9,io.]    THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.         323 

The  expressions  breaking  the  covenant  and  breaking  the 
shepherd's  staff  are  identical  in  meaning.  In  consequence 
of  the  determination  of  the  shepherd,  as  the  representative  of 
Jahaveh,  and  acting  under  his  directions,  no  longer  to  feed 
the  people  who  had  been  originally  committed  to  his  care, 
the  people  of  Israel  were  to  be  given  up  to  eat  of  the  fruit 
of  their  own  ways  and  to  be  filled  with  their  own  devices 
(Prov.  i.  31).  Hence  the  dying  sheep  would  no  longer  be 
cared  for,  nor  the  wounded  be  succoured  in  their  extremity. 

The  covenant,  therefore,  made  with  the  peoples  and  nations 
must  be  understood  as  a  covenant  which  had  been  made  with 
them  on  behalf  of  the  people  of  Israel,  for  the  good  of  that 
people.  It  was  a  covenant  whereby  the  nations  had  been 
partially  restrained  from  hurting  the  people  of  Israel,  and  by 
virtue  of  which,  when  the  nations  acted  injuriously  to  the 
people  of  God,  they  met  with  suitable  chastisement  from  the 
Keeper  of  Israel,  the  most  notable  instance  of  which  was 
the  destruction  of  the  three  shepherds  who  dared  to  oppress 
mightily  the  people  of  the  Lord. 

This  view,  as  far  as  regards  the  covenant  with  the  nations, 
is  that  adopted  with  slight  modifications  by  Hitzig,  Maurer, 
Ewald,  Hengstenberg,  Kohler,  and  Keil.  In  support  of  it 
the  passages  in  Hos.  ii.  20  (English  Version  ii.  18),  and  Ezek. 
xxxiv.  25  have  been  appealed  to.  In  the  former  of  these 
passages  God  is  described  as  making  a  covenant  with  the 
beasts  of  the  field  on  behalf  of  his  people.  The  latter 
passage  is  not  strictly  a  parallel,  as  far  as  the  exact  form 
of  expression  is  concerned,  but  its  meaning  is  essentially  the 
same.  The  objection  urged  against  this  interpretation  by 
Rosenmiiller,  Kliefoth  and  Volck,  is  that  the  passages  referred 
to  are  not  really  parallels,  as  to  be  so  the  insertion  of  some 
such  words  as  " for  them,"  or  "for  Israel,"  is  needed.  It  is, 
however,  sufficient  to  reply  (with  Maurer  and  Keil)  that 
such  an  addition  was  not  at  all  necessary,  as   the  context 


324  ZECHARIAH   AND    IIIS    PROPHECIES.        [Ch.  xi.  9,  lo. 

SO  plainly  demonstrates  for  whose  benefit  the  covenant  was 
made.  Moreover,  several  other  passages  can  be  cited  in 
wliich  a  similar  idea  is  contained,  as,  for  instance,  that  in 
Job  (v.  23),  "Thou  shalt  be  in  league  with  the  stones  of  the 
field  (lit.,  thy  covenant  shall  be  with  the  stones  of  the  field), 
and  the  beasts  of  the  field  shall  be  at  peace  with  thee."  So 
also  Isa.  xxviii.  15-18,  where  a  covenant  with  death  is  spoken 
of,  i.e.,  a  covenant  whereby  those  spoken  of  as  making 
it  should  not  be  swept  away  by  death  before  their  proper 
time.  A  similar  expression  occurs  in  Sirach  xiv.  12  (see 
Fritzsche's  note  on  that  passage).  This  is  the  simple  sense 
of  the  passage  here.  It  is  not  at  all  necessary,  with  Rosen- 
miiller,  to  explain  the  expression  "with  all  the  peoples" 
as  referring  to  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel,  although  Keil  (in 
his  Comm.  on  Deut.  xxxii.)  and  others,  perhaps,  go  too  far  on 
the  other  side,  when  they  assert  that  that  expression  is  never 
used  except  in  reference  to  heathen   nations. 

In  consequence  of  the  sin  of  Israel  at  the  period  referred 
to,  and  of  the  transgression  and  carnal   policy,  which  caused 
the  glorious  revival  of  the  Maccabean  period,  which  began  in 
a  dependence  upon  the  aid  of  God,  to  end  in  a  mere  seeking 
after  worldly  ends,  the  first  staff  of  the  shepherd,  that  named 
"beauty,"  or  "  favour,"  was  broken.     That  tlic  Jewish  nation 
was  no  longer  tended  by  that  staff  was  soon  apparent.     The 
Jews  were  harassed  by  the  Gentile  nations  from  various  sides, 
who,  as  in  the  days  of  old,  "  mightily  oppressed"  them.     The 
Mosaic  ordinances  in  many  points  were  set  at  nought.     The 
high  priesthood  was  often  held  by  persons  who  had  no  right 
or  title  to  that  dignity.     That  dignity  almost  ceased  to  be 
regarded  as  a  religious  office  ;  it  became  viewed   in   the  light 
of   a  political   position.      The   internal   cli\'isions   among  the 
Jews  of   this  period,  and  the  troubles  which  assailed    them 
from  all   sides,  need  not  here    be  related.     Among   the  reli- 
gious thinkers  of  the  age  a  very  general  impression  \  rcvailed 


Ch.  xi.  7-II.]    THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.        325 

that  the  glory  had  departed  from  Israel.  By  the  constant 
incursion  of  foreign  foes  into  their  land,  by  the  oppres- 
sive conduct  of  the  rulers  even  of  their  own  nation, 
who  abused  their  power  and  position,  by  the  reduction  of 
their  country  to  a  Roman  province,  the  Jews  acquainted 
with  the  prophecies  of  Zechariah  "  knew  that  it  was  the 
word  of  the  Lord"  which  had  been  spoken  by  him,  just  as 
the  prophet  Jeremiah  when  urged  in  prison  by  his  uncle 
Hanameel  to  buy  his  fields  in  Anathoth,  on  which  the 
Babylonian  soldiers  were  encamped  at  the  time,  knew  that  it 
was  the  word  of  the  Lord  (Jer.  xxxii.  8).  The  fulfilment  of 
the  evil  denounced  by  the  prophet  proved  the  genuineness  of 
his  commission,  as  much  as  the  performance  of  the  promises 
of  good  made  through  his  means  was  a  proof  that  the  Lord 
had  indeed  spoken  .unto  him  that  which  he  declared  for  the 
encouragement  of  his  people  (Zech.  ii.  13,  E.V.  verse  9,  vi.  15). 

The  phrase  which  occurs  in  verse  7  and  again  in  verse  11, 
rendered  in  our  A.  V.  by  "  the  poor  of  the  flock,"  is  more  cor- 
rectly understood  to  mean  "the  most  wretched  sheep,"  or  "the 
most  miserable  flock  "  (Kohler,  see  our  crit.  comm.).  It  is  a 
description  not  merely  of  a  certain  portion  of  the  sheep,  but  of 
the  flock  in  general.  It  had  been  a  "  flock  of  slaughter,"  and 
had  been  rescued  from  that  evil  condition  by  its  Lord.  But 
the  members  of  this  flock  of  the  Lord's  pasture  being  men 
(Ezek.  xxxiv.  11),  had  turned  back  quickly  every  one  to  his 
own  way  (Isa.  liii.  6),  and  by  their  ingratitude  to  their  shep- 
herd, proved  themselves  to  be  the  "  most  wretched  sheep." 

The  expression  "  those  who  observed  me,"  applied  to  the 
flock  in  verse  11,  does  not  support  the  views  of  those  who, 
like  Hengstenberg,  Kliefoth  and  others,  consider  that  "  the 
most  wretched  "  or  "  poorest  sheep  "  represent  the  pious  por- 
tion of  the  Jewish  nation.  For  that  expression  does  not 
necessarily  signify  those  who  attended  to  the  teachings  of 
the  prophet  of  Jahaveh,  or  denote  that  part  of  the  Jewish 


326  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS   rROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  12. 

people,  of  whom  our  Lord  spoke  when  he  said,  "  My  sheep 
hear  my  voice,  and  I  know  them,  and  they  follow  me " 
(John  X.  27).^  The  interpretation  of  this  phrase  given  by 
Hengstcnberg  might  be  defended  if  the  clause  stood  alone  ; 
for  the  word  occurs  in  that  signification  in  Prov.  xxvii.  18  ; 
Hosea  iv.  10,  etc.  But  as  the  same  expression  is  used  in 
other  places  of  observing  for  evil  purposes  (i  Sam.  xix.  11  ; 
Job  X.  14),  and  occurs  also  in  the  simple  meaning  of  observing 
generally,  without  any  expressed  intention  of  either  good  or 
ill  (as  in  i  Sam.  i.  12  with  ace.  of  person,  Job  xxxix.  i  with 
ace.  of  thing,  and  Eccles.  xi.  4),  the  context  must  be  appealed 
to  in  order  to  decide  the  special  sense  in  which  the  phrase  is 
to  be  taken.  And  as  the  next  verse  speaks  of  the  shepherd's 
demanding  from  these  wretched  sheep  some  remuneration  for 
his  toil,  and  of  their  offering  him  a  most  miserable  price  in 
return  for  his 'loving  care,  we  cannot  regard  the  phrase  other- 
wise than  as  used  in  a  sense  applicable  to  the  entire  body  of 
the  sheep  tended  by  the  shepherd,  and  not  as  a  description 
of  that  small  part  which  followed  the  good  shepherd. 

The  demand  of  the  shepherd  for  his  wages  is  not  to  be 
interpreted  as  made  only  at  one  special  crisis  in  the  nation's 
history.  It  was  in  reality  made  at  every  period,  especially 
after  the  staff  of  "  beauty  "  had  been  broken,  and  before  that 
of  "bands  "  was  snapped  asunder.  The  demand  preferred  by 
the  shepherd  of  Israel  is  only  another  expression  for  the 
Lord's  watching  and  waiting  long  to  receive  fruit  from  the  fig 
tree  planted  in  his  vineyard.  That  demand  may  well  be 
regarded  as  having  reached  its  culmination  when  the  Lord  of 

^  There  is  little  to  be  said  in  favour  of  Hitzig's  suggestion,  namely,  to  translate 
the  phrase  here,  "who  regarded,"  or  "attended  to  my  sign,"  taking  ^DS  as  the 
noun  nix  with  suffix  {»iy  sign)  instead  of  the  demonstrative  pronoim  with  sufT. 
(wt).  *riX  might  indeed  be  taken  in  either  sense.  In  the  passages  which  Ilitzig 
refers  to  (Ezek.  iv.  3  and  Isa.  vii.  11)  a  special  sign  is  distinctly  spoken  of.  But 
there  is  no  indication  of  such  here.  Hence  we  must  regard  the  word  as  used  for 
the  objective  case  of  the  first  personal  pronoun.     See  crit.  comm. 


Ch.  xi.  12.]    THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.  327 

life  and  glory  sought  in  his  own  person  to  obtain  fruit  from 
the  Jewish  fig  tree  (Luke  xiii.  6-9),  or  when  the  Lord  of  the 
vineyard,  as  a  last  effort,  sent  forth  his  only-begotten  Son  in 
the  hope,  which  alas  !  proved  vain,  that  the  husbandmen 
might  give  to  him  as  the  heir,  of  the  fruits  of  the  vineyard, 
which  they  had  not  rendered  to  his  servants  who  had  been 
sent  before  him  (Luke  xx.  13). 

Students  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  must  have  noted,  if 
not  the  special  fulfilment  of  the  predictions  of  Zechariah,  at 
least  the  general  truth  that  the  calamities  of  the  nation  were 
calamities  occasioned  by  its  sins.  As  the  study  of  the  Law 
was  more  or  less  enjoined  on  all  Israel,  and  as  the  Jews 
regarded  more  or  less  what  was  written  in  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets  (even  when  they,  like  professing  Christians  in  later 
times,  did  not  practically  do  the  things  there  enjoined),  they 
may  well  be  comprehended  under  the  designation  of  observers 
of  the  prophetic  word.  The  Jews  must  have  remarked  that 
the  covenant  whereby  the  nations  had  been  restrained  from 
acting  according  to  their  desires*  had  ceased  to  be  effective. 
The  Gentiles  are  even  represented  in  the  Prophets  as  discover- 
ing by  the  acts  of  God's  providence  that  the  Lord  was  the 
protector  of  Israel  (Ezek.  xxxix.  23)  ;  and  the  Jews  them- 
selves, in  other  places,  as  learning  by  the  calamities  which  were 
sent  upon  them  that  God  had  forsaken  them  on  account  of 
their  sins  (Jer.  xliv.  28  ;   Mai.  ii.  4). 

There  is  evidence  in  Jewish  writings  composed  in  or  shortly 
after  the  era  of  the  Maccabees,  of  the  fact  that  the  change 
in  God's  dealings  with  the  Jewish  nation  was  distinctly  per- 
ceived. Among  the  writings  of  that  era  which  recognise 
that  the  real  cause  of  the  calamities  of  the  people  was  that 
the  hand  of  the  Lord  was  heavy  on  them  on  account  of  sin, 
may  be  instanced  the  very  interesting  collection  of  eighteen 
Greek  psalms  known  by  the  name  of  "  The  Psalter  of  Solo- 
mon."    Those  psalms  probably  belong  to  the  era  referred  to 


328  ZECHARIAH   AND   IIIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  12. 

in  this  prophecy,  for  they  appear  to  have  been  composed 
.some  time  after  the  days  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  Ewald  is 
probably  correct  in  assigning  them  to  that  period.  In  these 
interesting  psalms  occur  several  striking  confessions  of  sin, 
and  expressions  of  repentance  mingled  with  bright  hopes  of 
the  near  approach  of  the  day  of  the  Messiah.^ 

The  shepherd  demanded  some  return  for  his  unrequited  toil 
(comp.  Deut.  xxxii.  6)  in  these  words  :  "  If  it  be  good  in  your 
eyes,  give  me  my  wages  ;  and  if  not,  forbear."  -  The  demand 
was  made  in  order  to  try  whether  the  people  would  sub- 
mit themselves  further  to  his  guidance.  It  was  an  attempt 
to  bring  them  to  consider  the  position  in  which  they  stood 
with  regard  to  Jahaveh  himself,  whose  representative  the  good 
shepherd  was.  On  the  words,  "  if  not,  forbear,"  Dr.  Pusey's 
remarks  are  worthy  of  consideration  :  "  God  does  not  force 
our  free-will,  or  constrain  our  service.  He  places  life  and 
death  before  us,  and  bids  us  choose  life.  By  his  grace  alone 
we  can  choose  him  ;  but  we  can  refuse  his  grace  and  himself. 
'  Thou  shalt  say  unto  them,'die  says  to  Ezekiel,  'Thus  said 
the  Lord  God,  He  that  heareth,  let  him  hear,  and  he  that  for- 
beareth,  let  him  forbear'  (Ezek.  iii.  27,  add  ii.  5,  7,  iii.  11). 
This  was  said  to  them,  as  a  people,  the  last  offer  of  grace.  It 
gathered  into  one  all  the  past.  As  Elijah  had  said,  '  If  the 
Lord  be  God,  follow  him  ;  but  if  Baal,  then  follow  him ' 
(i  Kings  xviii.  21)  ;  so  he  bids  them  at  last  to  choose  openly, 
whose  they  would  be,  to  whom  they  would  give  their  service  ; 

^  Drummond,  in  his  Jewish  Messiah,  pp.  140-2,  however,  places  the  composition 
of  these  psalms  at  as  late  a  date  as  the  time  of  Pompey,  B.C.  48,  owing  to  the  allu- 
sions in  Ps.  ii.  30-33.  But  this  is  doubtful?  On  the  other  hand  (Jraetz  on  account 
of  Pss.  xvii.  and  xviii.  assigns  the  whole  to  a  post-Christian  era,  wliich  hypothesis 
has  been  rightly  rejected  by  Drummond.  On  the  whole  the  date  assigned  by  Ewald 
appears  to  us  more  probable.  These  Psalms  are  to  be  found  in  the  appendix  to 
Viilzsche's  Lidri  A/ocrj'/hi  Vet.  Test.  Grace  {'Lc\^z\g,)  1871.     See  crit.  conim. 

■■*  This  demand  of  the  shepherd  cannot  be  supposed  to  be  addressed  to  the  three 
shepherds  of  verse  8  (Jahn),  or  to  the  rulers  of  the  people  (as  Hengstenberg),  or 
even  to  the  more  pious  portion  of  the  people  (as  Kohler  seems  to  imagine). 


Ch.xi.  12,13.]    THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.      329 

and  if  they  would  refuse  in  heart,  to  refuse  in  act  also.  For- 
bear, ceas£,  leave  off,  abandon ;  and  that  for  ever." 

The  remuneration  offered  to  the  shepherd  by  his  miserable 
flock  expressed  most  fully  their  utter  disregard  for  his  care, 
and  their  ingratitude  for  the  mercies  vouchsafed  to  them. 
They  weighed  out  for  him  thirty  shekels  of  silver.  This 
sum  is  mentioned  not  as  a  professed  remuneration  for  the 
thirty  days  during  which  he  had  tended  them,  as  v.  Hofmann 
and  Kliefoth  imagine,  according  to  their  artificial  explanation 
of  the  month  in  verse  8  which  has  been  already  noticed, 
but  rather,  as  the  majority  of  commentators  have  remarked, 
because  thirty  shekels  was  the  compensation  directed  by 
the  Mosaic  law  to  be  given  to  the  owner,  if  a  foreign  slave 
belonging  to  him,  whether  male  or  female,  was  accidentally 
gored  by  an  ox  (Exod.  xxi.  32).  The  offer,  therefore,  of  such 
a  price  was  insulting  in  the  highest  degree.^ 

The  indignant  command  of  Jahaveh,  who  marked  the  insult 
conveyed  by  the  ungrateful  flock,  was  :  "  Fling  it  to  the  potter 
— a  magnificent  price  at  which  I  was  priced  by  them."  For 
Jahaveh  identifies  himself  with  the  shepherd,  and  the  indignity 
offered  to  the  latter  was  an  insult  offered  to  God.  The  word 
we  have  rendered  "  fling  "  is  properly  to  cast  out,  and  is  used 
of  flesh  thrown  to  the  dogs  (Exod.  xxii.  30,  verse  31  in 
the  English  version),  of  a  corpse  cast  out  without  burial 
(Jer.  xxvi.  23,  xxxvi.  30,  etc.),  and  of  idols  flung  to  the  moles 
and  to  the  bats  (Isa.  ii.  20).  Note  especially  the  use  of  the 
verb  in  Ezek.  xvi.  5.  The  price  so  insultingly  offered  to  the 
shepherd  was  to  be  flung  to  a  potter  as  one  of  the  lowest  of  the 
labouring  classes,  to  be  cast  to  a  poor  worker  in  clay,  whose 
productions  were  of  so  little  value  that  when  marred  by  any 
accident  they  could  easily  be  replaced  at  a  trifling  expenditure 

^  The  same  price  was  given  by  Hosea  foi'  the  adulteress,  half  of  which  was  paid 
in  money,  and  the  other  half  in  kind  (Hosea  iii.  2) ;  see  Hengstenberg  and  Wiinsche 
on  the  passage. 


330  ZECHARIxVH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  13. 

of  cost  or  toil.  The  price  offered  by  tlie  people  to  the  Lord 
was  so  mean  and  despicable  that  it  could  only  be  regarded  as 
offered  in  mockery,  afld  hence  the  worthless  silver  was  not  to 
be  cast  into  the  treasury,  or  used  for  pious  purposes,  but  flung 
to  one  of  the  lowest  of  the  people,  thrown  back  to  one  of 
themselves,  even  as  a  dishonoured  carcase  was  flung  upon  the 
graves  of  the  common  people  (Jcr.  xxvi.  23). 

The  prophet  accordingly  took  the  thirty  pieces,  and  went 
forth  in  vision  to  the  temple  to  perform  the  awful  duty  im- 
posed upon  him.  No  mention  was  made  in  the  command 
of  Jahaveh  of  the  temple  as  the  place  in  which  the  wages 
which  had  been  insultingly  offered  were  to  be  vilely  cast  away. 
But  the  temple  was  the  place  where  the  people  of  the  cove- 
nant, the  Israel  of  God,  were  wont  to  assemble  to  present 
themselves  before  the  Lord.  Li  that  holy  place  the  awful 
repudiation  on  the  part  of  the  nation  of  him  who  was  the 
Shepherd  of  Israel  was  to  be  publicly  made  known.  The  base 
transaction  (however  done  in  a  corner)  was  to  be  proclaimed 
upon  the  house-tops.  In  the  place  where  the  solemn  covenant 
between  Jahaveh  and  his  people  had  so  often  been  ratified  by 
sacrifices,  the  fearful  divorce  between  the  peo2:)le  of  Israel  and 
himself  was  to  be  declared.  What  was  done  in  the  temple 
was  done  in  the  presence  of  both  the  parties  to  the  covenant ; 
in  the  presence  of  Jahaveh,  in  whose  honour  the  temple  had 
been  erected,  and  in  the  presence  of  the  nation  who  by  its 
erection  of  that  temple  had  accepted  Jahaveh  as  their  Lord 
and  God.  In  the  presence  of  both  parties  the  rejection  of  the 
Lord  as  the  Shepherd  of  Israel  was  to  be  announced,  and  the 
dissolution  of  the  covenant  made  by  Jahaveh  to  be  publicly 
proclaimed  by  the  act  of  his  representative. 

There  is  not  the  slightest  necessity  on  critical  grounds  to 
translate  the  noun  which  occurs  here  b}'  anything  else  than 
"a  potter."  The  verb  (*1^^)  from  which  the  participial  noun 
which  is  here  used  ("lifV)    is    derived,  signifies   to  form,  to 


Ch.  xi.  13.]    THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.  33  I 

fashion  (Ps.  Ixxiv.  17  ;  sometimes  with  the  special  signification 
of  moulding  out  of  clay,  Gen.  ii.  7,  8,  19).  When  the  parti- 
ciple is  used  as  a  noun  it  occurs  in  the  special  signification 
of  a  potter  (as  Isa,  xxix.  16,  xxx.  14,  xli.  25,  xlv.  9;  Jen 
xviii.  2-6,  xix.  i  ;  i  Chron.  iv.  23,  etc.).  But  the  verbal  form 
often  retains  its  participial  meaning,  and  is  followed  by  the 
accusative  of  the  thing  formed,  whether  a  real  or  an  ideal 
creation  (as  Hab.  ii.  18  ;  Isa.  xlv.  7,  18  ;  Ps.  xciv.  20).^  The 
LXX.  and  Symmachus  translate  the  word  here  by  "foundry" 
or  "furnace,"  most  probably  because  they  did  not  comprehend 
why  "  a  potter  "  specially  should  have  been  spoken  of.  The 
verb  is  occasionally  used  of  fashioning  or  forming  metals 
(Isa.  xliv.  12,  etc.).  But  this  translation  is  impossible  in  this 
place,  unless  it  be  intended  only  as  a  paraphrase.  The  Tar- 
gum  and  Syriac  render  it  respectively  by  treasui'er  and 
treasury,  which  translation  has  been  adopted,  but  on  very  in- 
sufficient critical  grounds,  by  eminent  modern  critics  (see  our 
crit.  comm.).  For,  apart  from  all  considerations  arising  out  of 
the  reference  made  to  this  prophecy  in  the  New  Testament 
(Matt,  xxvii.  9,  10),  it  would  be  indeed  strange  that  the 
prophet  should  receive  special  directions  from  Jahaveh  to  cast 
the  ignominious  price  offered  for  his  care  into  the  treasury  of 
the  Lord.  Dishonourable  gains  of  any  kind  were  not  to  be 
brought  into  that  treasury,  much  less  a  paltry  sum  of  money 
offered  to  the  Lord  in  mockery  and  derision  (Deut  xxiii.  18  ; 
Matt,  xxvii.  6). 

We  have  already  assigned  the  reason  which  appears  to  us 
the  most  rational  for  the  command  to  cast  the  money  to 
the  potter.  Various  other  reasons  have  been  given.  Grotius 
has  maintained  that  the  money  was  cast  to  the  potter  to 


1  It  may  be  considered  as  a  noun  or  participle  in  Isa.  xliv.  9,  but  more  probably 
it  has  there  the  force  of  the  foi^mer,  and  signifies  generally  "a  sculptor,"  "  an  artist. " 
It  is  often  used  as  a  noun  in  the  same  sense  in  reference  to  God,  probably  in  allu- 
sion to  Gen.  ii.  7;  so  in  Isa.  xliii.  i,  xliv.  2,  24. 


332  ZECHARIAH   AND   IIIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  13. 

show  that  the  Lord  did  not  vakic  the  pieces  of  silver  more 
than  broken  pieces  of  pottery.  This  explanation  seems  to 
leave  out  of  sight  the  fact  that  the  price  was  offered  in  deri- 
sion. Moreover,  as  Keil  has  noted,  a  potter  has  not  merely 
to  deal  with  potsherds.  Others  have  imagined  that  the  clay 
with  which  the  potter  is  accustomed  to  work  is  referred  to, 
and  that  the  meaning  is  identical  with  our  expression,  throw 
it  into  the  dirt  or  mud  (v.  Hofmann).  Potter's  clay  is  not, 
however,  mud  or  mire  (Kohler)  ;  but  compare  Is.  xli.  25. 

Hengstenberg  does  not  seem  more  felicitous  in  assigning 
reasons  why  "  the  potter "  is  specially  mentioned  in  the 
passage.  The  article,  we  must  note  in  passing,  is  simply 
generic.  There  is  no  necessity  whatever  to  suppose  that 
"  the  potter "  specially  employed  in  making  pots  for  the 
temple  was  alluded  to,  as  Hengstenberg  imagines.  Nor  can 
the  expression  "  to  the  potter  "  be  shown  to  be  an  equivalent 
to  such  an  expression  as  "  to  the  hangman  !  "  Neither  is 
to  cast  anything  to  the  potter  equivalent  to  casting  it  into 
an  unclean  place.  Hengstenberg's  theory  on  this  point  is 
based  upon  the  supposition  that  there  is  a  reference  in  the 
prophecy  of  Zechariah  to  a  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  and  that 
the  potter  mentioned  by  Jeremiah  (chap,  xviii.  2,  and  xix.  2) 
had  his  pottery  in  the  valley  of  liinnom,  which  had  been 
made  an  unclean  place  by  Josiah  (2  Kings  xxiii.  10).  This, 
however,  cannot  be  proven.  On  the  contrary,  as  Keil  has 
observed,  the  passage  in  Jer.  xix.  i,  2,  implies  that  the 
potter's  house  there  spoken  of  was  inside  the  city.  For 
Jeremiah  was  directed  first  to  go  and  buy  a  vessel  at  the 
potter's  house,  and  then  to  go  forth  with  that  vessel  outside 
the  gates  to  the  valley  of  Hinnom.  Even  if  the  potter  had 
his  workshop  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  it  by  no  means  follows 
that  his  work  was  regarded  as  unclean,  so  that  casting  to 
the  potter  should  be  equivalent  to  casting  into  an  unclean 
place.       If  his   work    done  in  that  valley   were   so  unclean. 


Ch.  xi.  13.]    THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.  333 

how  could  he  (and  this  is  necessary  to  complete  the  argument 
of  Hengstenberg)  have  prepared  the  pots  which  were  used 
in  the  sacred  service  of  the  temple  ?  The  idea  that  the 
money  was  taken  by  the  prophet  to  the  temple  in  order 
that  it  might  be  carried  thence  unto  the  potter,  is  a  rather 
strained  interpretation  of  verse  13.  The  explanation  of 
Hengstenberg  has  solely  arisen  from  a  wish  to  make  out  that 
the  prophecy  of  Zechariah  is  a  renewal  and  repetition  of  the 
previous  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  and  that  St.  Matthew  has, 
therefore,  quoted  the  whole  as  written  in  the  book  of  Jeremiah. 
But  there  is  no  real  ground  for  identifying  the  prophecies  of 
Jeremiah  with  those  of  Zechariah,  except  that  in  both  pro- 
phecies "  a  potter "  is  spoken  of ;  all  the  rest  is  simple 
imagination.! 

Kliefoth's  attempt  to  explain  the  mention  of  "  the  potter," 
must  also,  though  well-meant,  be  rejected.  Convinced  of 
the  fanciful  character  of  Hengstenberg's  hypothesis,  and  yet 
bearing  in  mind  that  this  prediction  is  adduced  by  St. 
Matthew,  not  as  a  prophecy  of  Zechariah,  but  as  a  prediction 
of  Jeremiah,  Kliefoth  maintains  that  it  is  not  to  be  con- 
nected with  the  passage  in  Jer.  xix.,  in  which  the  potter's 
vessel,  and  not  the  potter  himself,  comes  under  considera- 
tion, but  must  rather  be  connected  with  that  of  Jer.  xviii., 
where  the  potter  himself  is  spoken  of  In  the  latter 
passage  God  is  represented  in  his  dealings  toward  Israel  by 
the  potter,  who  did  with  the  clay  as  he  thought  fit,  moulding 
it  into  various  forms,  and  breaking  up  any  vessel  that  dis- 
pleased him.  Assuming  that  this  passage  in  Jeremiah  is 
referred  to,  Kliefoth  thinks  that  there  is  a  possibility  of 
explaining  the  passage  in  Zechariah  in  two  ways.  God 
may  be  regarded  as  himself  "  the  potter  "  who  had  formed 

^  I  regret  to  observe,  however,  that  Hengstenberg's  view  of  this  matter  has 
been  endorsed  by  Arclideacon  Lee,  in  his  interesting  treatise  on  The  Inspiration  of 
Holy  Scripture,  3rd  edit,  1864. 


334  ZECriARIAH   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  13. 

Israel,  and  could  with  case  dash  Israel  in  pieces  as  a 
potter's  vessel.  Thus  the  prophet  might  well  be  directed 
to  cast  down  the  pieces  of  silver  to  the  great  Potter  in  his 
temple,  not  indeed  as  an  offering  well-pleasing  to  him,  but 
as  a  corpus  delicti,  in  order  that  he  might  punish  the  people 
for  their  base  return  for  his  care,  and  deal  with  them  as  the 
potter  in  Jeremiah  dealt  with  a  misshapen  pot. 

The  second  explanation  suggested  by  Kliefoth,  based,  it 
must  be  remembered,  on  the  same  assumption,  namely,  that 
the  command  of  God  presupposes  a  reference  to  the  passage 
in  Jer.  xviii.,  is  as  follows :  In  the  prophecy  of  Zechariah 
future  occurrences  are  narrated  under  the  form  of  imaginary 
actions.  The  prophet,  therefore,  after  he  had  received  the 
pieces  of  silver,  which  were  a  proof  that  the  nation  had 
rejected  God  as  their  shepherd,  was  commanded  to  cast  those 
pieces  to  a  potter,  as  the  potter  figuratively  represented  the 
position  in  which  the  Lord  then  stood  to  Israel.  In  going 
forth  to  obey  the  Divine  command  the  prophet  found  a  potter 
in  the  temple,  and  flung  down  to  him  the  money.  In  the 
latter  case,  as  well  as  in  the  former  supposition,  the  price  is 
to  be  regarded  not  as  a  thankoffering,  however  small  and 
worthless,  offered  for  God's  care,  but  as  a  memorial  of  ingrati- 
tude, which  would  draw  down  the  Divine  vengeance.  In  both 
cases  "the  potter"  would  represent  J  ahaveh  ;  directly  accord- 
ing to  the  first  explanation,  or  indirectly  according  to  the 
second  ;  and  inasmuch  as  on  either  supposition  the  words 
used  in  Zechariah  would  be  regarded  as  really  based  on  the 
prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  the  evangelist  in  the  New  Testament 
quotes  the  prophecy  of  Zechariah  as,  properly  speaking,  be- 
longing to  Jeremiah. 

This  interpretation  is  no  doubt  ingenious,  but  the  more  it 
is  considered  the  less  satisfactory  does  it  appear.  It  is  al- 
most impossible  to  consider  that  Jahaveh  refers  to  himself 
in  the  command,  "  cast  it  to  the   potter."     The   people   in 


Ch.  xi.  13.]    THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.  335 

whose  ears  Zechariah  first  delivered  his  prophecy  could  not 
by  any  possibility  have  thus  understood  his  words.  Nor 
would  any  students  of  the  prophetic  scriptures  have  im- 
agined such  an  interpretation.  The  whole  is  evidently 
devised  in  order  to  avoid  admitting  a  mistake  of  some  kind 
or  other  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew.  Even  if  the  prophecy  I 
be  regarded  as  having  been  fulfilled  as  narrated  in  the  New 
Testament,  the  correspondence  between  the  predictions,  if  it  is  j 
thus  to  be  understood,  and  its  fulfilment  in  the  way  narrated! 
by  the  evangelist,  is  very  small  indeed.  The  following  is 
Kliefoth^s  view  as  to  the  connexion  of  the  prophecy  and  its] 
fulfilment,  which  it  is  only  fair  to  give,  though  we  regard  ilj 
as  most  unsatisfactory. 

This  prophecy  was,  according  to  Kliefoth,  fulfilled  in  a 
peculiar  manner.  Israel  paid  over  the  price  which  indicated 
their  rejection  of  the  Lord,  namely,  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver, 
to  the  traitor  Judas.  He  afterwards  flung  them  down  in  the 
temple,  and  the  priests  bought  with  them  the  potter's  field, 
in  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  to  bury  strangers  in.  Thus  were 
the  chief  points  in  the  prophecy  fulfilled  ;  the  price  of  rejec- 
tion was  paid,  it  consisted  of  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  it  was 
cast  down  in  the  temple  before  God,  who  dealt  accord- 
ingly with  Israel  as  the  potter  in  Jer.  xviii.  dealt  with  his 
marred  vessels.  In  the  minor  details,  which  are  not  pro- 
minent in  the  prophecy,  the  fulfilment  is  something  different 
from  what  might  have  been  expected.  Thus  the  traitor 
Judas,  and  not  a  prophet,  received  the  money  which  indi- 
cated that  Israel  had  rejected  its  Lord.  Judas  brought  the 
money  into  the  temple,  and  the  chief  priests,  and  not  a 
prophet,  paid  that  money  to  the  potter  for  his  field.  The 
potter  to  whom  the  money  was  paid  was  not  Jahaveh,  the 
great  Potter,  but  a  common  potter  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom. 
But  even  in  these  minor  circumstances,  which  are  somewhat 
different  from   the   prophecy,  the  fulfilment  does   but   pass 


336  ZECIIARIAH   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  13. 

beyond  the  prediction  of  Zechariah  in  order  to  include  other 
prophecies  than  that  contained  in  Jer.  xviii.  and  that  men- 
tioned in  this  passage  of  Zechariah.  For  the  chief  priests 
and  rulers  of  Israel  lost  by  this  action  the  true  Potter, 
Jahavch,  and  his  temple  ;  while  they  gained  in  place  thereof 
the  field  of  a  common  potter  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  a 
Tophct.  Thus  was  fulfilled  also  the  prophecy  of  Jer.  xix. 
This  was  the  reason  why,  Kliefoth  thinks,  St.  Matthew 
referred  to  Jeremiah  instead  of  to  Zechariah.  Even  the 
evangelist  himself,  Kliefoth  observes,  does  not  forget  to 
glance  at  these  unimportant  details  in  which  the  prophecy 
of  Zechariah  differed  from  the  actual  history.  For  in  his 
quotation  from  the  Old  Testament  prophet,  the  evangelist 
says,  "and  they  took  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  and  they 
gave  them  for  the  potter's  field,  as  the  Lord  appointed  me  " 
(Matt,  xxvii.  9,  10)  ;  whereas  in  the  Old  Testament  prophecy 
the  prophet  himself  was  to  take  the  pieces  of  silver  and  give 
them  for  the  field  in  question.  Such  is  Kliefoth's  theory  of 
the  connexion  between  the  prophecy  and  its  fulfilment. 

As  regards  the  citation  of  this  prophecy  of  Zechariah  in 
the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,^  as  a  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,   it 

^  An  ingenious  theoiy  lias  lately  been  propounded  by  Bohl  (Forschungcii  tiach 
enter  Volksbibel  zur  Zcit  Jcsu :  Wien,  1873),  namely,  that  there  was  in  existence  at, 
and  previous  to,  the  Christian  era  a  translation  of  the  LXX.  into  the  popular 
Aramaic,  and  that  this  translation  formed  the  Volksbibel,  or  Popular  Bible  of 
our  Lord's  day,  and  from  it  the  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  found  in  the 
New  were  originally  taken.  This  opinion  deserves  consideration,  but  we  cannot 
say  that  it  has  been  proved.  The  fanciful  opinion  propounded  by  Roberts,  in  his 
Discussions  on  the  Gospels,  that  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  were  (I  reek -speaking 
Jews,  has  not  been  favourably  received  by  Biblical  critics.  Bohl  of  course  adopts  the 
commonly  received  view  that  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  spoke  the  vernacular 
Aramaic  of  that  day,  which  was  termed  Hebrew.  Bohl  in  a  more  recent  work, 
Alt-tejtamenllichen  Citate  im  Ncuen  Tes/amenf  (Wien,  1878),  has  attempted  to 
apply  his  theory  to  the  problem  of  the  New  Testament  quotations  from  the  Old. 
His  treatment  of  this  passage  is  not  successful.  His  mode  of  ex]ilaining  the 
mistakes  of  the  LXX.  and  extracting  therefrom  the  text  of  the  Volksbibel  is  highly 
inf,'eninus,  but  not  convincing.  He  argues  that  the  words  in  Matt,  xxvii.  10,  /co^A 
avvira^iv  fioi  Ki/ptoj  were  taken  from  Jeremiah,  in  which  prophet  they  were  contained 
in  the  Volksbibel.     He  supposes  that  the  entire  passage  Zech.  xi.  12,  13,  occurred 


Ch.  xl.  13.]    THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.  337 

is  most  easily  explained  as  a  simple  slip  of  memory,  as 
Augustine,  Luther,  Beza,  Jewell,  and  others  have  regarded 
it,  as  well  as  among  modern  orthodox  expositors,  Keil. 
Kohler,  and  others.  By  whom  the  mistake  was  indeed 
actually  made,  whether  by  the  writer  or  the  scribe,  cannot  be 
ascertained.  But  no  real  danger  accrues  to  the  authority 
of  Scripture  as  a  Divine  Jevelajon  by  such  an  admission.^;,, 
Those  who  argue  as  if  the  admission  of  an  error  is  fraught 
with  danger  to  the  authority  of  Scripture  are  far  from  acting 
as  its  true  defenders.  The  solemn  words  of  Job  may  be 
profitably  borne  in  mind  in  all  such  discussions  (Job 
xiii.  7).  No  satisfactory  demonstration  has  been  yet  ad- 
duced to  show  that  the  evangelist  referred  to  any  prophecy 
of  Jeremiah  in  the  same  manner  as  the  prediction  quoted 
in  Mark  i.  2  3,  as  belonging  to  Isaiah  is  partly  taken  from 
the  prophet  Malachi  ;  or  that  the  evangelist  considered 
the  prophecy  as  virtually  contained   in  that  of  Jeremiah,  as 

being  partly  based  on  his  predictions.^ 

\ 

as  a  whole  in  Jeremiah.  In  defence  of  this  view,  Bohl  cites  the  well-known  words 
of  Jerome  respecting  an  apocryphal  book  of  Jeremiah,  "legi  nuper  in  quodam 
hebraico  volumine  quod  Nazarenoe  sectas  mihi  Hebrseus  obtulit  Jeitmiae  apo.cry- 
phum  in  quo  hsec  (Zech.  xi.  13)  ad  verbum  scripta  reperi."  Bohl  maintains  that 
the  words  found  in  Zechariah  bear  the  impress  of  being  those  of  Jeremiah,  and 
ought  to  occur  after  Jer.  xix.  15.  His  whole  argument  is  unsatisfactory  because  it 
is  founded  on  a  series  of  unproved  hypotheses.  If  we  oppose  such  assumptions 
when  they  are  against  our  views,  we  must  also  oppose  them  when  on  our  side.  If 
we  shrink  from  the  honest  admission  that,  as  far  as  the  evidence  goes,  there  was 
some  mistake  on  the  part  of  the  evangelist,  the  opinion  of  Valckenar  [SchoL  in 
Luc.  ii.  38)  quoted  by  Bohl  is  preferable,  namely,  that  TipCov  (Zaxaptot^)  occurred 
in  the  original  text  of  the  evangelist,  which  an  early  copyist  mistook  for  Ipcou 
('lepe/x^oi;),  and  hence  the  blunder  arose.  This  suggestion  is,  however,  set  aside  by 
Turpie  in  his  able  note  {Neio  Testament  View  of  the  Old :  Hodder  &  Stou^hton 
1872),  and  by  others,  because  such  contractions  do  not  occur  in  the  oldest  MSS. 
Turpie  concludes,  with  Davidson  in  his  Sacred  Herm.,  after  Mede,  that  Jeremiah 
must  be  considered  the  author  of  the  prophecy,  ix,-xi.  The  quotation  in  the  N.  T 
cannot  be  viewed  as  a  proof  of  this.  Henderson  coincides  with  the  view  that  the 
passage  in  St.  Matthew  must  be  regarded  as  corrupt.  But  it  is  dangerous  to  go 
against  the  weight  of  evidence,  just  because  it  seems  to  run  counter  to  a  priori  views 
of  inspiration.     It  is  safer  to  acknowledge  the  difficulty  as  yet  unsolved. 

^  See  the  important  remarks   on  this  point  in  Row's  BamJ>ton   Lectures  on 
tJie  Evidences  of  Christianity.      The  value  of  the  New  Testament  wi-itings  as 


338  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  13. 

.--  It  might  indeed  be  asserted,  but  there  is  no  evidence  to 

support  the  assertion,  that  the  mistake  originated  not  with 
the  evangehst,  but  with  one  of  his  early  copyists,  inasmuch 
as  copies  of  the  entire  writings  of  the  prophets  must  have 
been  extremely  rare  in  that  day.  Lightfoot  would  solve  the 
difficulty  by  appealing  to  the  tradition  of  the  Talmud,  (Baba 
bathra  146)  in  which  the  order  of  the  prophetic  writings  in 
the  sacred  volume  is  stated  formerly  to  have  bepn  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel,  Isaiah.  This  order  is  actually  found  in  many 
Hebrew  MSS.  Lightfoot  concludes  from  this  that  St.  Mat- 
thew simply  quotes  the  passage  as  occurring  in  the  roll  of 
the  prophets,  which  roll  he  cites  by  the  name  of  the  book 
which  stands  first  in  order.  As  an  instance  of  such  quotation 
he  appeals  to  Luke  xxiv.  44.  That  example,  however,  is 
not  conclusive.  Moreover  all  the  other  quotations  found  in 
St.  Matthew's  Gospel  are  made  on  a  very  different  principle, 
and  hence  this  explanation  cannot  be  regarded  as  satisfactory, 
nor  has  it  found  defenders  among  modern  scholars. 

The  prophecy  of  Zechariah  in  some  respects  may  be  re- 
garded as  an  allegorical  history  of  the  manner  in  which  the 

inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost  is  by  no  means  affected  by  such  an  admission. 
MoreovW  the  honest  critic  is  bound  by  the  laws  of  evidence  to  admit  of  mistakes 
occurring  when  he  cannot  otherwise  explain  passages.  One  must  not  be  led  by 
a  priori  assumptions  in  such  matters,  and  so  expose  oneself  to  the  charge  of  unfair 
dealing.  When  similar  mistakes  occur  in  other  writings  we  are  not  slow  to 
ascribe  them  to  the  author.  Thus  for  instance,  with  regard  to  the  very  book 
on  which  we  are  commenting,  we  find  Justin  Martyr  in  his  Dial,  cum  TrypJwnc, 
c.  xiv.,  ascribing  through  a  slip  of  memory  Zech.  xii.  10  to  Hosea,  though  in  other 
places,  Dial.  121,  and  Apol.  i.  52,  he  ascribes  it  to  Zechariah.  In  the  latter 
passage,  he  combines  the  text  with  sentences  from  Isaiah.  Again,  in  Apol.  i.  35, 
he  ascribes  Zech.  ix.  9  to  Zephaniah,  while  again  in  Dial.  53  he  rightly  assigns 
it  to  our  prophet.  Similar  mistakes  occur  elsewhere.  On  what  principle  then  are 
we  to  admit  of  mistakes  occurring  in  Old  Testament  citations  in  Justin  Martyr, 
and,  CDntraryJto  all  the  evidence  which  is  forthcoming,  refuse  to  admit  such  in 
St.  Matthew  ?  Tlic  Christian  apologist  will  find  that  it  is  much  safer  to  admit 
^  the  possibility  of  such  mistakes,  and  to  argue  that  snch  are  m  no  wise  incompatible 
y/Ctv.    with  the  fact  that  the  Scriptures  are  an  authoritative  revelation  from  God.     This 

t-Ut-  1^  is  the  strongest  and  safest  line  for  him  to  take.     His  character  for  honesty  is  lost 

X  when  he  refuses  to  submit  to  positive  evidence. 


Ch.  xi.  13.]    THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.         339 

prophets  in  general  were  treated  in  almost  every  age  by  the 
people  of  Israel,  who,  on  account  of  their  sins  against  the 
Lord's  prophets,  were  permitted  to  eat  of  the  fruit  of  their 
own  ways,  and  to  be  filled  with  their  own  devices  (Prov.  i.  31 ; 
2  Chron.  xxxvi.  16).  But  the  prophecy  attained  its  complete 
and  final  fulfilment,  when,  after  a  long  period  of  expectation 
on  the  part  of  Israel,  and  of  forbearance  on  the  part  of  God, 
the  Lord  sent  unto  his  people  his  only-begotten  Son  to 
receive  of  the  fruit  of  the  vineyard  which  he  had  planted  on 
the  very  fruitfiil  hill  (Isa.  v.  i,  2  ;  Luke  xx.  9-15).  He  who 
had  tended  his  people  in  former  ages  by  his  prophets,  and 
preserved  them  by  his  watchful  providence,  came  in  the  flesh 
to  teach  and  instruct  Israel  in  the  things  concerning  the  king- 
dom of  God.  The  fulness  of  time  arrived,  and  the  house 
of  Israel  (Luke  ii.  32)  was  called  on  to  "repent  and  believe 
the  gospel"  (Mark  i.  15),  which  was  preached  unto  them  by 
the  lips  of  the  Holy  One  of  God.  The  truth  of  his  Divine 
mission  was  proved  by  mighty  works  which  none  other  man 
did  (John  xv.  24),  by  the  deeds  of  power  and  acts  of  love 
which  he  performed  in  the  cities  and  streets  of  Judaea.  He 
taught  as  one  that  had  authority,  and  not  as  the  scribes 
(Matt.  vii.  29).  He  expounded  the  true  meaning  of  the 
Divine  law,  which  had  been  so  concealed  by  "  the  hedge " 
made  up  around  it  by  "the  men  of  old"  (Matt.  v.  21),  with 
very  probably  the  best  intentions.^  But  though  he  came  unto 
his  own  people,  who  had  been  prepared  for  his  advent  by  the 
predictions  of  so  many  prophets  and  holy  men,  and  by  the 

*  Compare  the  saying  in  the Pirke Aboth  :  "Moses  received  the  Law  from  Sinai 
and  delivered  it  to  Joshua,  and  Joshua  to  the  elders,  and  the  elders  to  the  pro- 
phets, and  the  prophets  delivered  it  to  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue.  They 
said  three  things.  Be  deliberate  in  judgment,  and  train  up  many  disciples,  and 
(Hnin?  yO  -ibiyi)  make  a  hedge  for  the  law."  The  meaning  of  the  last  sentence 
is,  impose  such  additional  restrictions  as  to  make  men  keep  at  a  safe  distance  from 
the  forbidden  ground.  See  the  Rev.  Charles  Taylor's  critical  edition  of  the  Sayings 
of  the  Jewish  Fathers,  comprising  Pirqe  Aboth  and  Percq  R.  Meir,  in  Hebrew  and 
English,  with  critical  afid  illustrati-de  Notes  (Cambridge,  1877). 


340  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  13. 

spirit-Stirring  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist  in  the  wilderness, 
"his   own  received  him    not "  (John  i.   11).      The  Pharisees 
could  not  endure  that  their  traditions  should  be  set  at  nought, 
the  scribes  that  their  false  interpretations  of  the  law  should 
be  made  manifest  to  all  men,  the  priests  and  rulers  of  the 
people  that  their  selfishness,  hypocrisy  and  irreligion  should 
be  so  mercilessly  exposed.       Though   the  common  people 
/  rfy^i  heard  him  gladly  (Mark  xii.  37),  they  listened  too  often  to 
f?  U-^  liis   preaching   as   children,    mainly    for    amusem_eiitL4Luke 
^^,  .   fV'n.  31,  32),  because  it  embraced  topics  the  discussion- of  which 
jT'must  in  themselves  be  ever  more  or  less  subjects  of  interest 
to  all.     They  had,  however,  little  inclination  for  the  most 
part  to  take  up  the  cross  and  to  be  his  disciples.    The  manner 
in  which  he  was  received  by  the  Jews  but  too  plainly  ex- 
pressed their  feeling  :  "  We  will  not  have  this  man  to  rule 
over  us "  (Luke  xix.    14).      They  were  glad    enough  to  be 
benefited  by  his  works  of  mercy,  but  they  were  unwilling 
to  accept  his  doctrine.     His  appearance  and  conduct  were 
opposed  to  their  false  notions  respecting  the  Messiah  and  his 
kingdom,  for  his  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world  (John  xix.  36), 
and  came  not  with  the  external  accompaniments  of  worldly 
pomp  and  show  (Luke  xvii.  21).      Consequently,  save  during 
,    a  transient  hour  of  fitful  enthusiasm,  he  was  not  accepted  as 
.    the  Messiah  sent  from  God.     The  Jews  rejected  him  as  their 
ruler  and  deliverer,  as  their   forefathers   had    once   rejected 
Moses   (Acts  vii.  35).      They  denied  the   Holy  One  and  the 
Just  (Acts  iii.  14).       They  denied  him  as  their  King   in   the 
presence  of  Pontius  Pilate  (Acts  iii.  13).     Their  rejection  of 
Christ   was   a   fact    performed  in    essence    long   before   the 
awful  day  of  its  public  avowal.     The  rejection  of  our  Lord 
by   the   Jews   as   their    Messiah   might   well   be   considered 
as  having  substantially  fulfilled   the  prediction  of  Zechariah, 
even  if  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  had  not  been  actually  paid 
by  the  chief  priests  and  rulers  as  the  price  of  his  betrayal. 


Ch.  xi.  13.]     THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.        34I 

For,  as  in  the  prophecy  the  payment  of  those  thirty  pieces 
of  silver  to  the  prophet  was  designed  only  figuratively  to 
indicate  the  ingratitude  exhibited  by  the  people  towards 
Jahaveh,  so  the  Jewish  nation  had  plainly  indicated  their 
contempt  for  the  leader  and  deliverer  whom  God  had  in  his 
love  sent  to  them,  long  before  that  day  when  in  the  bitterness 
of  their  hate  they  procured  his  death  on  the  cross. 

The  fulfilment,  however,  of  the  prophecy  actually  recorded 
by  the  evangelist  was  in  itself  most  remarkable.  The  slight 
differences  in  the  minor  details  do  not  in  the  least  detract 
from  its  peculiar  significance.  The  thirty  pieces  of  silver  paid 
to  Judas  by  the  chief  priests  and  elders  of  the  Jews  were 
in  reality  the  price  at  which  those  representatives  of  the 
Jewish  nation  valued  the  services  of  our  blessed  Lord.  By 
fixing  that  as  the  price  for  his  person  they  manifested  how- 
much  they  despised  him  and  his  work.  No  prophet,  as  in  the 
prophetic  picture,  but  the  traitor  Judas  it  was  who  received 
that  despicable  price.  But  Judas  as  one  of  the  chosen  twelve 
might  well  in  this  particular  be  regarded  as  the  representa- 
tive of  our  Lord.  The  money  paid  to  him  v/as  virtually 
paid  to  his  Master  as  a  compensation  for  his  toil.  It  is 
most  remarkable  that  Judas  was  ultimately  driven  by  remorse 
for  the  crime  he  had  committed  to  bring  the  thirty  pieces  of 
silver  into  the  tem.ple  of  God,  and  that  he,  when  the  chief 
priests  listened  coldly  to  his  confession  of  guilt,  should  in 
very  deed  have  dashed  down  the  pieces  of  silver  on  the  pave- 
ment of  the  house  of  the  Lord.  And  it  is  even  still  more 
remarkable  that  those  unfeeling  priests  did  not  venture  to 
cast  that  money  into  the  treasury,  but  deterred,  notwith- 
standing their  callousness,  by  the  prohibition  of  the  law 
,in  Deut.  xxiii.  18,  took  counsel  and  bought  with  the 
paltry  sum  a  potter's  field,  probably  denuded  of  the  clay 
which  had  once  made  it  valuable.  Thus  it  happened  that 
the  money  literally  passed   into  a  potter's  hand,  one  might' 


('  342  ZECHARIAH  AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.     [Ch.  xi.  13,  14. 

I  almost  say,  having  been  flung  to  him  in  the  house  of  the 
Lord.  All  these  facts  certainly  prove  that  foreknowledge 
is  exhibited  in  the  prophecy,  and  that  the  hand  of  an  over- 
ruling Providence  so  directed  the  events  that,  though  the 
prophecy  had  been  essentially  fulfilled  when  Christ  was 
rejected  by  the  Jewish  people,  a  visible  sign  was  given  to 
all  whom  it  concerned  that  the  awful  rejection  of  the  Lord 
spoken  of  by  Zechariah  had  become  an  accomplished  fact 
when  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  having  been  betrayed  into  the  hands 
of  his  enemies,  suffered  death  upon  the  cross. 

It  only  remains  to  note  in  general  that  the  quotation  of 
the  passage  by  the  evangelist  is  a  free  quotation  from  the 
Hebrew,  given,  one  might  almost  say,  with  a  running  com- 
mentary. The  words  in  the  Gospel  (Matt,  xxvii.  9),  "  they 
took  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver,"  assume  the  place  of  "  I  took" 
in  Zechariah,  because  the  chief  priests  in  this  particular  acted 
as  Caiaphas  before  them  (John  xi.  49-52)  in  God's  stead,  and 
unwittingly  fulfilled  the  Divine  will.  "  The  price  of  him  that 
was  valued  "  is  (as  Keil  well  expresses  it)  a  free  translation  of 
the  words  in  Zechariah,  "  a  goodly  price  at  which  I  was 
priced ;"  and  the  clause  that  follows  in  the  Gospel,  viz., 
"  whom  they  of  the  children  of  Israel  did  value,"  corresponds 
to  the  concluding  words  of  the  sentence  in  the  prophet,  "  at 
which  I  was  priced  by  them."  Further  the  words  in  Matt, 
xxvii.  10,  "and  gave  them  for  the  potter's  field,"  coincide 
with  the  words  in  Zechariah,  "  and  I  cast  it  to  the  potter  in 
the  house  of  the  Lord,"  while  the  concluding  words  of  the 
quotation  in  St.  Matthew,  "  as  the  Lord  appointed  me,"  seem 
to  refer  to  the  original  direction  of  the  Lord  concerning  the 
money,  namely,  "  cast  it  to  the  potter." 

The  prophet   Zechariah  further  describes  the  result  of  this^ 
contemptuous     rejection    of  the    Good    Shepherd    by     his 
people.     The  staff  of  "  beauty,"  or  "  favour,"  had  long  since 
been  broken,   and  the  Jewish    nation    had    experienced  the 


Ch.  xi.  14.]      THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.        343 

bitterness  of  no  longer  being  led  and  tended  thereby.  The 
stafif  of  "  bands  "  was  now  broken  asunder,  and  the  "  brother- 
hood "  dissolved  between  Judah  and  Israel.  The  "  brother- 
hood "  between  Israel  and  Judah  had  been  originally  broken 
by  the  schism  which  occurred  in  the  days  of  Rehoboam. 
That  brotherhood  was  never  afterwards  restored,  up  to  the 
time  of  the  Babylonian  captivity.  An  alliance  indeed  sub- 
sisted for  a  short  time  between  the  two  kingdoms  in  the 
reign  of  Jehoshaphat,  king  of  Judah,  and  afterwards  during  the 
reign  of  his  son  Jehoram  ;  but  that  friendship  was  but  short- 
lived, and  the  alliance  itself  was  condemned  by  the  prophets. 
In  fact,  no  real  "brotherhood"  could  exist  without  agreement 
in  matters  of  religion.  And  there  was  no  agreement  in 
the  latter  particular,  even  during  the  last  days  of  the  king- 
dom of  Israel,  during  which  period  so  many  of  the  modern 
critics  have  attempted  to  prove  that  this  prophecy  was 
written.  Verse  14  cannot  refer,  as  Rosenmiiller  imagines,  to 
the  old  schism  under  Rehoboam.  Such  an  idea  has  been 
condemned  by  Maurer  as  unnatural,  and  it  is  quite  sufficient 
to  notice  it  in  passing  without  further  discussing  the  matter. 
The  majority,  perhaps,  of  modern  critics,  such  as  Maurer, 
Hitzig  and  Ewald,  consider  the  prophecy  distinctly  to  refer 
to  the  rupture  which  took  place  between  the  kingdoms  of 
Israel  and  Judah,  when  Pekah,  the  king  of  Israel,  made  an 
alliance  with  Rezin,  king  of  Syria,  and  invaded  the  land  of 
Judah.  This  view  takes  it  for  granted  that  the  prophet  con- 
sidered the  kingdom  of  Israel  previous  to  that  rupture  with 
Judah  as  standing  in  a  covenant  relation  to  God.  But  that 
kingdom  never  was  regarded  by  the  prophets  as  occupying 
such  a  position  since  the  days  of  the  great  schism.  Nor  is 
there  in  the  history  of  the  breaking  out  of  the  war,  to  which 
reference  is  supposed  to  be  made,  the  slightest  hint  given 
of  any  efforts  having  been  previously  made  for  a  union,  or 
brotherhood,  between   the  two   portions   of  the   people,   as 


344  ZECHARIAH  AND  HIS   TROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  14. 

Hitzig  seems  to  suggest,  or  that,  in  consequence  of  the  failure 
of  such  attempts,  the  estrangement  between  the  kingdoms 
became  more  bitter  than  before.  For  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that,  from  the  time  of  the  great  schism  in  the  days  of  Reho- 
boam  up  to  the  time  of  the  Assyrian  captivity,  a  chronic  state 
of  more  or  less  decided  hostility  existed  between  the  two 
kingdoms,  during  which  long  period  the  intervals  of  peace 
were  short,  and  there  was  scarcely  ever  any  cordial  alliance 
between  them,  save  that  already  noticed  as  having  taken 
place  in  the  days  of  Jehoshaphat  and  Jehoram. 

But  the  restitution  of  the  real  "  brotherhood "  between 
Ephraim  and  Judah  formed  one  of  the  objects  of  hope  looked 
forward  to  even  by  the  prophets  of  the  exile  (Ezek.  xxxvii. 
15-28).  Such  hopes  were  not  altogether  unrealized.  In  the 
war  of  the  sons  of  Zion  with  the  sons  of  Greece,  and  during  the 
events  pointed  out  in  the  tenth  chapter,  the  union  of  all  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel  actually  took  place.  The  prophet  here 
predicts  the  breaking  up  again  of  the  unity  of  the  people  on 
account  of  a  rejection  by  the  nation  of  Jahaveh  as  their  Lord 
and  shepherd.  Zechariah  did  not  announce  that  the  unity 
of  the  nation  would  be  broken  up  in  a  manner  similar  to  that 
in  the  days  of  Rehoboam,  and  that  two  hostile  nations  would 
be  formed  out  of  the  one  people.  The  disruption  of  national 
unity  which  took  place  in  the  days  of  Jeroboam  may  indeed 
be  referred  to  as  an  illustration  of  that  which  would  occur 
again  in  a  more  serious  form.  The  schism  of  Jeroboam  had 
considerably  weakened  the  nation  of  the  twelve  tribes.  The 
dissolution  of  the  brotherhood  here  spoken  of  was  to  result 
in  its  ultimate  ruin;  for  Israel,  deprived  of  the  good  shepherd, 
was  to  fall  into  the  power  of  the  foolish  shepherd,  or  shep- 
herds, depicted  in  the  close  of  the  prophecy. 

Some  modern  commentators,  such  as  von  Hofmann, 
Ebrard  and  Kliefoth,  consider  that  the  prophecy  depicts 
the  breaking  up  of  the  Jewish  or  Israclitish  nation  into  two 


Ch.  xi.  14.]     THE  GOOD  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  REJECTION.  345 

parts,  divided  from  one  another  by  a  great  religious  chasm,  the 
one  portion  consisting  of  those  who  should  preserve  the  true 
religion,  the  other  of  such  as  should  follow  paths  of  their  own 
devising  ;  the  one  party  corresponding  to  Judah,  the  other  to 
Ephraim  ;  the  former  being  partakers  of  the  blessings,  the  r— 
latter  of  the  curses.  Kliefoth  maintains  that  "  Ju^ah  "  signifies  'CT/tre 
the  Christian  Church,  which  was  essentially  Jev/ish  in  its  fx^^k 
origin.  He  further  considers  that  the  part  of  the  nation 
which  rejected  Christ  is  designated  under  the  more  general 
term  of  "Israel";  the  very  name  indicating  that  those 
who  would  thus  reject  the  Christ  of  God  were  following  in 
the  steps  of  the  insurgents  in  the  days  of  Rehoboam,  who  ex- 
claimed, "what  portion  have  we  in  David  .?"  (i  Kings  xii.  16). 
The  objection  which  appears  fatal  to  all  such  expositions  is, 
as  Kohler  and  Keil  have  noticed,  that  no  mention  is  made  in 
this  prophecy  of  the  faithful  who  adhered  to  the  good  shep- 
herd. The  prophecy  is  entirely  confined  to  a  narrative  of  the 
rejection  of  the  shepherd  and  his  care  by  the  nation  in  general. 
A  faithful  remnant  does  not  come  under  the  consideration 
of  the  prophet.  The  breaking  up  of  the  "  brotherhood,"  which 
was  to  be  in  existence  at  the  time  to  which  the  prediction  refers, 
was  the  final  result  of  the  determination  of  the  shepherd  no 
longer  to  feed  the  people  as  his  flock.  The  breaking  up  of 
that  "  brotherhood "  cannot,  therefore,  be  considered  to  be 
the  separation  of  an  "  Israel  after  the  spirit "  from  an  "  Israel 
after  the  flesh." 

We  agree,  therefore,  with  Hengstenberg,  Kohler,  and  Keil, 
in  considering  that  the  prophecy  refers  to  the  fearful  bursting 
forth  of  wild  party  spirit  among  the  Jewish  nation,  so  vividly 
described  by  the  Jewish  historian  Josephus,  and  also  among 
later  historians  in  the  pages  of  Milman.  The  story  of  the 
dissolution  of  all  the  bands  of  "  brotherhood  "  during  the  great 
war  with  the  Romans,  and  especially  during  the  awful  siege 
of  Jerusalem,  needs  not  to  be  repeated  here.      Among  the 


34^  ZECHARIAH  AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.    [Ch.  xi.  15-17. 

curiosities  of  interpretation  we  may  rank  such  explanations  as 
that  of  Cocceius,  which  makes  Judah  to  represent  the  Chris- 
tians under  Presbyterian  government,  and  Israel  to  depict 
the  Christians  adhering  to  Episcopal  rule  ;  or  even  that  of 
Vitringa,  according  to  which  the  great  schism  between  the 
Eastern  and  Western  Churches  is  supposed  to  be  here  predicted. 
The  people  having  finally  rejected  the  good  shepherd  were 
given  over  by  Jahaveh  to  the  tender  mercies  of  a  foolish  or 
wicked  shepherd.  The  translation  "idol-shepherd"  in  verse  17, 
given  by  our  A.  V.  and  by  Luther  is  erroneous;  and,  conse- 
quently, all  expositions  founded  upon  such  a  rendering,  which 
regard  the  false  shepherd  as  setting  himself  up  as  an  idol  to  be 
adored  by  his  followers,  are  completely  erroneous,  whether  the 
passage  be  considered  to  refer  to  some  imaginary  Antichrist 
of  the  future  (Jerome  and  Dr.  Pusey),  or  to  the  Pope  of  Rome 
as  adored  in  the  church  of  St.  Peter  by  the  cardinals  after  his 
election  {Bishop  Wordsworth).  Though  the  adjective  in  the 
original  of  verse  17  (which  literally  signifies  empty,  vabi)  is 
used  with  reference  to  idols  (Lev.  xix,  4,  xxvi.  i),  as  being  in 
themselves  things  utterly  vain  and  foolish,  the  word  occurs 
here  as  a  substantive  (as  is  proved  by  the  use  of  the  article), 
and  the  construction  is  almost  identical  with  that  in  Job 
xiii.  4,  where  the  words  of  our  A.  V.  are  "  physicians  of  no 
value,"  literally,  physicians  of  vanity,  that  is,  vain  physicians, 
useless  comforters.  That  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  is 
evident  from  the  fact  that  it  is  used  as  a  synonym  for  the 
expression  in  ver.  14,  "  foolish  shepherd,"  while  no  indication 
is  given  in  the  prophecy  that  the  false  shepherd  claims  or 
obtains  any  worship  whatever  from  the  miserable  flock  de- 
vastated by  his  means,  ' 

^  The  phrase  in  verse  17  is  Pv^^n  ""^1.  The  word  "?vS  is  used  as  an  adjec- 
tive to  describe  idols  as  vain  and  useless.  So  in  Lev.  xix.  4,  and  xxvi.  i  ; 
Ps.  xcvi.  5,  etc.  It  is  often  used  in  the  prophets  as  an  equivalent  for  idols,  as  Isa. 
ii.  20,  xix.  I,  etc.     Fiirst  in  his  IVbrterb.  considers  idolio  be  the  original  meaning, 


Ch.xi.i5-i7-]       THE  EVIL  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  DOOM.  347 

It  is  quite  useless,  as  Maurer,  Hitzig  and  others  have  pointed 
out,  to  inquire  in  what  particulars  the  instruments  of  a  foolish 
shepherd,  which  the  prophet  was  bidden  to  take  in  order  to 
represent  that  character,  differed  from  those  of  a  good  shep- 
herd. The  words  simply  indicate  that  the  prophet  having 
represented  the  one  character  should  also  personate  the  other. 
Nor  is  it  necessary  to  suppose  that  what  is  here  represented 
as  done  by  the  prophet  was  exhibited  dramatically  before  the 
eyes  of  the  people.  It  was  a  drama,  or  tragedy,  set  forth  in 
words,  not  one  pictured  before  the  eyes  of  the  people.  There 
is  no  need,  therefore,  to  imagine,  with  Hengstenberg,  that  the 
instruments  of  the  foolish  shepherd  consisted  of  a  strong  stick 
mounted  with  iron  with  which  the  sheep  were  hurt  and 
wounded,  whereas  the  good  shepherd  was  wont  to  keep  the 
sheep  in  order  with  a  thin  staff  and  with  gentle  strokes.  Such 
a  picture  is  far  from  correct  in  its  details,  for  even  the  staff  of 
a  good  shepherd  could  not  have  been  a  thin  stick.  Nor  need 
we  "picture  to  ourselves  a  shepherd's  bag  full  of  holes,  and 
containing  nothing  of  any  use  to  either  shepherd  or  sheep  " 
(Hengstenberg).     The  instruments  of  the  false  shepherd  are 


and  vain,  worthless,  the  derived.  The  word  is  used  in  this  passage  as  a  noun,  as 
is  proved  by  the  article  whicli,  though  used  with  the  genitive,  qualifies  tlie  govern- 
ing noun.  It  also  occurs  as  a  noun  in  Job.  xiii.  14,  7''?K  "''^{S"1,  and  the  K'ri 
reads  the  word  in  Jer.  xiv.  14,  instead  of  >175!?,  which  is  found  in  the  text,  both 
alike  giving  the  same  sense  "  nothingness,"  or  as  our  A.V.  translates  "a  thing  of 
nought "  in  reference  to  false  visions  and  divinations.  The  phrase  here  means 
"the  useless  (or  worthless)  shepherd."  It  has  been  rendered  "  Hirt  der  Vernein- 
ung,"  shepherd  of  negation  (compare  Latin  nihili,  nequa/n),  as  referring  to  one 
who  will  embody  in  himself  the  opposite  of  the  Divine,  that  is,  an  Infidel  Anti- 
christ. This  appears  to  us  too  modern  an  idea.  The  usage  of  the  word  is 
against  this  view.  We  do  not  agree  with  those  who  think  that  such  an  incarnation 
of  evil  is  predicted  anywhere  in  Scripture,  much  less  here.  The  LXX.  have  in  verse 
15,  TToc/xT]!'  direipos,  but  in  verse  17,  they  read  the  sentence  in  the  plural,  w  oi 
TTOi/xaifoPTes  Cyi)  TO,  fidraia,  KaToKeXonroTes  to,  wpo^ara,  though  the  singular  is  in 
the  rest  of  the  passage.  The  Vulg.  has  "  pastor  stultus"  in  v.  15,  but  here  "  O 
pastor,  et  idolum  (reading  ?''?N"1)  derelinquens."  The  Syr.  and  the  Targ.  render 
alike  in  both  places,  the  former  by  "foolish  shepherd,"  the  latter  t5t^St3  NDJlSj 
"foolish  ruler."     On  the  form  of  '•1?")  see  crit.  comm. 


348  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.     [Ch.  xi.  15-17. 

simply  spoken  of  in  order  to  fill  up  the  picture,  and  to  form  a 
suitable  contrast  to  the  staves  of  the  good  shepherd  which 
were  of  such  peculiar  significance.  But  inasmuch  as  it  was 
never  intended  that  the  prophet  should  act  the  vision  before 
the  people,  we  need  not  inquire  as  to  what  outward  change  in 
his  appearance  the  prophet  might  in  such  a  case  have  assumed. 

Of  more  consequence  is  it  to  note  that  the  foolishness  which 
is  stated  to  have  been  the  characteristic  mark  of  this  evil 
shepherd  is  equivalent  to  sin.  Folly  and  sin  in  the  eyes  of 
the  sacred  writers  were  almost  identical  terms  (Ps.  xiv.  i,  ff ; 
Prov.  i.  7,  ix.  10,  etc.,  compare  also  Job  v.  3,  where  the  word 
occurs  which  is  found  in  verse  15).  The  bad  shepherd,  as 
Kohler  notes,  is  depicted  rather  in  the  character  of  a  foolish 
shepherd  than  of  a  wncked  one,  because,  in  acting  as  he 
did,  he  only  brought  down  vengeance  at  last  on  his  own 
head.  God  causes  even  the  wrath  of  the  false  shepherd 
against  the  flock  to  praise  him,  and  "restrains  the  remainders 
thereof,"  or  "girds  himself  with  it,"  m.akes  himself  to  be  glori- 
fied thereby  (Ps.  Ixxvi.  11,  verse  10  in  E.  V.).  God  would 
raise  up  such  a  shepherd  in  the  land  in  order  to  punish  the 
nation  of  Israel  for  having  rejected  his  love.  Just  as  Assyria 
and  Babylon  were  used  as  instruments  to  execute  the  Divine 
vengeance,  and  then  punished  for  their  own  sin,  so  Israel 
w£is  to  be  punished  by  the  means  of  the  evil  shepherd,  who 
in  his  turn  was  afterwards  to  fall  beneath  the  vengeance  of 
the  Most  High.^ 

It  follows  from  what  has  been  already  said  that  the  evil 
shepherd  spoken  of  in  the  prophecy  cannot  be  supposed  to  be 

'  Inasmuch  as  the  prophecy  speaks  of  Israel's  sin  and  Israels  punishment,  the 
translation  "  I  will  raise  up  a  shepherd  in  the  land,"  adopted  by  Ewald,  Umbreit, 
Ilengstenberg,  Kohler,  etc.,  is  more  correct  than  to  render  the  last  words  by 
"in  the  earth,"  as  proposed  by  Neumann  and  Kliefoth.  Of  course  both  trans- 
lations are  possible.  But  even  if  we  adopt  the  former  rendering,  it  need  not 
necessarily  follow  that  the  power  of  the  foolish  shepherd  is  to  be  regarded  as 
confined  to  the  limits  of  the  land  of  Israel,  though  the  land  of  Israel  is  the  only 
country  spoken  of  in  the  prophecy, 


Ch.xi.  IS-I7-3         THE  EVIL  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  DOOM.  349 

Menahem,  as  Hitzig  imagines,  or  Hoshea,  as  Maurer  sug- 
gests, or  even  Pekah,  "  the  hard  wild  king  who  was  then 
reigning  "  (Ewald).  Not  the  slightest  reason  can  be  given 
why  any  of  these  kings  should  be  depicted  in  the  character 
here  represented,  except  that  those  scholars  who  insist  on 
.the  pre- exilian  composition  of  the  prophecy  must  needs 
propose  some  interpretation  for  this  portion  also.  No  such 
correspondence  has  been  made  out  between  the  predictions 
of  this  chapter  and  the  events  of  the  pre-exilian  era  as 
would  justify  any  conclusion  to  be  drawn  in  favour  of  the 
composition  of  the  prophecy  in  pre-exilian  times.  Hengsten- 
berg's  opinion  as  to  the  foolish  shepherd  is  much  more  defen- 
sible, namely,  that  by  it  is  meant  the  whole  body  of  evil  rulers 
who  ruled  the  Jewish  nation  after  their  rejection  of  Christ, 
and  Vv'ho  were  permitted  to  work  out  their  own  evil  designs 
on  that  people,  and  so  to  bring  about  its  destruction  and  their 
own  ultimate  ruin. 

Something,  however,  more  definite  seems  designed  by  the 
picture.  The  term  "  shepherd  "  in  this  prophecy  of  Zechariah, 
except  where  the  good  shepherd  is  signified,  is  uniformly 
applied  to  the  Gentile  oppressors  of  Israel.  Compare  also 
Jer.  vi.  3-5,  and  xxiii.  1-4.  In  the  latter  passage  of  Jeremiah 
a  contrast  is  drawn  between  the  heathen  oppressors  of  Israel, 
the  pastors  or  shepherds  who  destroyed  and  scattered  the 
sheep,  and  the  true  shepherds  who  were  to  be  set  over  the 
flock  by  Jahaveh  himself.  The  same  contrast  is  found  in  this 
passage  of  Zechariah.  The  true  shepherd,  represented  typi- 
cally by  the  prophet,  is  contrasted  with  the  foolish  shepherd, 
or  the  Gentile  oppressor  of  Israel.  If  the  true  shepherd  was 
rejected  by  the  flock,  its  members  must  needs  fall  under  the 
dominion  of  the  false  shepherd.  If  he  who  had  fed,  and  would 
still  have  fed  them,  was  rejected  ignominiously,  he,  whom  in 
their  blindness  they  said  they  preferred,  would  be  permitted 
to  exercise  his  authority  to  the  full.     If  he  who  came  in  his 


350  ZECIIARIAH   AND   HIS   PROniECIES.      [Ch.xi.  15-17. 

Father's  name  was  not  received  by  his  people,  he  who  came 
in  his  own  name  and  in  his  worldly  authority  would  be  per- 
mitted to  treat  the  people  of  Israel  as  his  subjects  (John  v.  43). 
The  Jews  were  allowed  the  choice  of  masters.  They  rejected 
him  whose  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world  (John  xviii.  36)  ; 
they  accepted  him  who  was  the  head  and  representative  of  • 
the  world-power.  In  other  words,  they  rejected  Christ  the 
king  of  Israel  ;  they  accepted  Caesar  the  emperor  of  Rome. 
In  the  madness  of  their  rage  against  Jesus  of  Nazareth  they 
cried  out  "we  have  no  king  but  Cresar  "  (John  xix.  15).  They 
obtained  their  choice  and  found  it  bitterness  in  the  latter  end; 
for  they  rebelled  against  the  king  whom  they  had  chosen, 
and  the  Romans  came  and  took  away  both  their  place  and 
nation  (John  xi.  48). 

The  evil  shepherd  is  represented  not  merely  as  neglecting 
the  flock  over  which  he  had  rule,  but  as  actually  destroying 
the  same.  The  power  with  which  he  was  entrusted  by  Divine 
providence  was  to  be  used  by  him  without  mercy.  The 
dominion  of  any  empire  is  permitted  only  for  the  good  of 
those  governed.  Kings  and  emperors  who  do  not  act  up  to 
that  character  by  which  the  epic  bard  loves  to  describe  them, 
"  shepherds  of  the  people,"  will  ultimately  be  destroyed,  and 
empires  which  do  not  seek  the  good  of  those  ruled  over  must 
finally  perish.  The  Roman  shepherd  is  described  as  one  who 
did  not  look  after  the  perishing  sheep  of  his  Jewish  flock. 
The  poor  animal  which  was  driven  away  (the  expression  does 
not  signify  "  the  young  one  "  ^  as  in  our  A.  V.)  he  would  not 

'  "lU3n  is  not  tlic^w/;/i,%  the  tender,  as  Hengstenberg  thinks,  referring  it  to  the 
lambs.  The  lambs  which  feed  beside  their  mothers  do  not  generally  go  astray. 
It  is  better  to  regard  the  word  as  Gesenius  as  an  abstract  used  as  a  concrete,  a 
driving  ozit,  for  that  which  is  driven  out,  the  scattered.  LXX.  rightly  rb  icxKopwic- 
fiivov,  Vulg.  dispersttm,  similarly  the  Syr.  Hitzig  proposes  to  alter  the  punctuation 
and  read  "iy.3n  i.q.  "li'??'!',  the  scattered,  in  which  case  the  participle  would  be 
the  only  participle  of  the  masculine  gender  in  the  verse.  He  tries  to  obviate  this 
objection  by  noting  that  there  arc  rams  also  in  a  ilock.  But  the  alteration  is  un- 
necessary. 


Ch.  xi.  15-17.]      THE  EVIL  SHEPHERD  AND  HIS  DOOM.  351 

seek,  that  which  was  broken  he  would  not  heal ;  even  those 
sheep  which  were  strong  and  able  to  stand  on  their  own  legs 
he  would  not  take  care  of.  He  ate  the  flesh  of  the  fat,  that 
is,  consumed  the  rich  among  the  Jewish  people  by  his  rapacity; 
and  not  merely  consumed  their  flesh,  but  even  tore  the  hoofs 
of  the  sheep's  feet  in  order  to  devour  that  which  might  be 
between  them,  in  order  that  nothing  whatever  of  the  animal 
might  be  lost  which  could  possibly  be  consumed.'  The 
Jewish  nation  was  wasted  by  oppression,  and  their  riches 
destroyed  by  the  grinding  rapacity  and  greed  of  their  cruel 
Roman  masters. 

The  description  is  given  in  language  suitable  to  the 
character  of  an  evil  shepherd,  under  which  the  Roman  empire 
is  described.  It  is  strikingly  similar  in  meaning  to  that 
given  of  the  fourth  or  Roman  world-empire,  in  the  book  of 
Daniel,  as  a  wild  beast  more  dreadful,  terrible  and  strong 
than  those  beasts  that  were  before  it,  furnished  with  great 
iron  teeth  and  brazen  claws,  devouring,  breaking  in  pieces, 
and  stamping  even  the  residue  of  its  prey  under  its  feet 
(Dan.  vii.  7,  19,  23). 

But  as  the  wild  beast  in  Daniel  is  represented  as  ultimately 
slain,  its  body  destroyed,  and  given  to  the  burning  flame 
(Dan.  vii.  11),  so  Zechariah  pronounces  a  curse  upon  the 
Roman  shepherd  for  the  tyrannical  and  cruel  exercise  of  his 
power.  Woe  to  the  false  shepherd  who  deserts  the  sheep ! 
May  the  sword  of  Jahaveh  descend  with  power  upon  his  right 
arm,  the  right  arm  of  power  which  should  have  guarded  and 
protected  the  flock  !  May  that  sword  strike  the  right  eye  of 
the  shepherd  which  should  have  sought  out  pastures  in  which 
the  flock  might  have  fed,  and  thus  have  guarded  the  poor 
sheep  from  harm  !    The  arm  of  power  should  be  dried  up,  the 

'  So  Kohler  and  others.  Hitzig  and  Ewald  think  the  meaning  of  the  phrase 
to  be  that  the  shepherd  would  destroy  the  hoofs  of  the  sheep  by  driving  them 
over  rough  and  hard  roads.     But  the  other  view  is  preferable. 


352  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  17. 

mighty  strength  paralysed  !  and  the  hght  of  the  right  eye  of 
that  false  and  wicked  shepherd  of  the  people  should  be  quenched 
in  utter  darkness  !^  The  last  world-empire  should  perish  as 
that  of  Babylon  under  the  judgment  of  God ;  its  power  and 
authority  would  pass  away,  the  wisdom  of  its  wise  men  would 
fail,  and  its  strength  be  dried  up  under  that  sentence  which 
ever  rings  out  the  death-knell  of  all  human  power  and  might, 
"  I  will  overturn,  overturn,  overturn,  till  he  come  whose  right 
it  is,  and  I  w'ill  give  it  to  him  "  (Ezek.  xxi.  27). 

'  The  latter  threatening  does  not  seem  to  correspond  to  the  former  ;  but  as 
Hengstenberg,  Kohler  and  Keil  have  noted,  the  sword  is  only  mentioned  as  an 
instrument  of  punishment,  and  the  combination  of  different  kinds  of  punishment  is 
designed  .to  depict  more  vividly  the  terrible  nature  of  the  ultimate  doom. 


CHAPTER    XI 


THE    TRIALS   AND    VICTORY   OF  ISRAEL— THE    GREAT 

MOURNING. 


A  A 


CHAPTER   XL 


The  superscription  of  the  chapter,  335,  note — God's  general  government  over  man, 
356 — Views  of  the  early  expositors,  357 — The  Prophecy  considered  as  a  con- 
tinuation of  the  preceding,  357 — Objections  to  the  typical  interpretation,  358, 
375 — Other  theories,  358 — Traverses  the  same  ground  as  that  preceding,  359 — 
Opinion  of  modern  critics,  359 — Pressel's  view  examined,  359,  ff. — The  bow 
of  reeling,  361 — Differences  of  translations  of  verse  2,  361 — ^Judah  not  opposed 
to  Jerusalem,  362,  364 — The  stone  of  burden,  364,  370—  General  view  of  the 
passage,  364-5 — Different  readings  of  verse  7,  366 — Meaning  of  the  passage, 
367 — Deliverance  to  be  granted  first  to  Judah  and  then  to  Jerusalem,  367-8 — 
Reference  to  the  Maccabees,  369 — Attacks  upon  Jerusalem  injurious  to  the 
nations,  370 — The  struggle  of  the  Maccabees,  370-1 — The  house  of  David  at 
that  period,  371 — The  titular  princes  of  the  house  of  David,  372,  note — The 
Ereviarium  of  the  pseudo-Philo,  372,  note — Remarkable  allusion  of  the  prophet 
to  the  house  of  David,  372^an  indication  of  post-exilian  authorship,  374 — The 
name  of  Judah  and  Israel,  374,  355,  note — Hengstenberg's  view  of  the  prophecy, 
375 — Explanation  of  Kliefoth,  376-7 — Objections  to,  378 — Views  of  Maurer 
and  Hitzig,  378 — v.  Hofmann's  attempt  to  refer  it  to  the  future,  379 — The  pro- 
phecy fulfilled  in  days  of  Maccabees,  380 — Remarkable  expression  in  verse  9, 
380,  ff. — Transition  to  the  deliverance  by  Messiah,  381 — -Translation  of  the 
tenth  verse,  383 — The  pierced  one,  384 — Different  readings  of  tenth  verse,  383 
— Rival  explanations,  384 — The  Sent  identified  with  the  Sender,  3S6 — The 
mourning  for  the  Representative  of  Jahaveh,  386 — Objections  to  Ewald's  view, 
387 — Reference  to  our  Lord's  crucifixion,  387 — Not  to  the  special  piercing  of 
his  side,  388 — The  national  mourning,  388 — Teaching  of  the  Synagogue  about 
the  two  Messiahs,  389 — ^Jewish  interpretation  similar  to  that  of  Ewald,  390 — 
Messiah's  sufferings  vicarious,  391 — The  mourning  of  Hadadrimmon,  391 — Views 
of  Hitzig  and  Pressel,  392 — Hadar-Ramman,  393,  note — Article  of  Count  von 
Baudissin,  392 — The  mourning  for  Josiah,  394,  ff. — Difficulties  met,  395 — Peni- 
tential sorrow  of  Israel,  396 — The  sorrow  national  and  individual,  397 — Its 
fulfilment,  398,  403,  ff. — The  families  mentioned,  398 — Nathan  and  Shimei,  399 
— Bishop  Ilervey's,  view,  401 — View  of  Geiger,  402 — The  mourning  for  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  403— The  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy,  403,  ff. — The  prophecy  to 
have  a  larger  not  a  more  literal  fulfilment,  405. 


CHAPTER  XL 

THE   TRIALS   AND   VICTORY   OF   ISRAEL — THE   GREAT 
MOURNING. 

The  similarity  of  the  opening  of  the  twelfth  chapter  to  that 
of  the  ninth  is  very  striking.  It  not  only  commences  with 
a  similar  superscription,  viz.,  "the  oracle  of  the  word  of 
Jahaveh,"  ^  but  with  a  like  reference  to  the  power  of  God.  In 
the  ninth  chapter  the  eyes  of  men  are  spoken  of  as  looking 
upwards  to  Jahaveh  on  account  of  his  judgments,  which  should 

^  Both  chapters  begin  with  mn''  ~\21  iil^"G,  but  in  chap.  ix.  i  those  words 
are  followed  by  f"lNZl,  in  chap.  xii.  by  ?X"lt^*''  bv.  As  i<tJ^  does  not  necessarily  sig- 
nify a  prophecy  of  woe  and  disaster  (see  p.  202),  it  is  better  to  translate  the 
'Tj^i-py  here  "concerning  Israel,"  not  "against  Israel."  The  expression  that  follows, 
nin''"DS3  is  in  apposition,  and  is  found  as  a  superscription  in  Ps.  ex.  i ;  2  Sam. 
xxiii.  I  ;  Num.  xxiv.  3,  15.  The  mention  of  Israel  in  this  title,  coupled  with 
the  fact  that  that  name  does  not  occur  in  the  prophecy  which  follows,  has  been 
considered  by  v.  Ortenberg  to  be  a  proof  that  the  superscription  was  added  by 
a  later  hand.  He  compares  the  use  of  I^H  in  the  title  of  Cant.  i.  i,  which 
nowhere  else  in  that  book  occurs  in  the  uncontracted  form  and  which  has  con- 
sequently been  regarded  as  a  proof  that  that  superscription  was  added  by  a  later 
hand.  In  support  of  this  view,  v.  Ortenberg  observes  that  the  important  words 
which  occur  in  such  titles  generally  re-appear  in  the  predictions  which  follow 
(comp.  Isa.  xxi.  I,  and  13,  xxx.  6,  xxii.  i,  5  ;  2  Sam.  i.  18,  22).  The  similar  super- 
scription in  Mai.  i.  i,  v.  Ortenberg  also  views  as  an  addition  by  a  later  editor  after 
the  analogy  of  this  passage.  But  the  peculiar  construction  used  in  Malachi, 
?K")t^*"'5  ?K,  is  against  such  a  view,  and  moreover  the  name  Israel  occurs  in 
Mai.  i.  5,  as  also  yacob  in  contrast  with  Esau  in  Mai.  i.  2.  Other  critics,  as  Bleek 
(Studien  u.  Krit.,  p.  294)  maintain  that  the  mention  of  "  Israel "  in  the  superscrip- 
tion of  this  prophecy  which  speaks  solely  of  Judah,  is  a  proof  that  the  prophecy 
itself  was  composed  in  the  last  decades  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  when 
Israel  in  the  Holy  Land  was  only  represented  by  Judah.  Our  view  is  far  more 
tenable,  namely,  that  in  post-exilian  times  "  yudah  "  was  the  general  name  for  all 
the  members  of  the  twelve  tribes,  so  termed  after  the  tribe  best  known,  to  which  j, 
the  greater  part  of  the  people  belonged.  The  name  ^'Jsrae/"  was  sometimes  used 
as  the  rdigious. title  of  the  nation.  Hence  the  mention  of  Judah  only  in  what  fol- 
lows is  to  us  a  proof  of  the  post-exilian  authorship  of  the  prophecy. 


356  ZECHARIAII   AND   IIIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xii.  i. 

rivet  the  attention  of  all  ;  the  twelfth  chapter  commences 
with  an  allusion  to  the  almighty  power  of  that  God  who  hath 
spread  forth  the  heavens,  founded  the  earth,  and  formed  the 
spirit  of  man  in  his  midst.  The  ninth  chapter,  however,  speaks 
of  God's  judgments  against  the  nations  that  had  oppressed 
his  people,  and  of  his  mercy  towards  his  own  people.  The 
twelfth  chapter,  on  the  other  hand,  speaks  of  the  trials  and 
judgments  about  to  fall  on  the  people  and  city  of  God,  and 
then  of  the  punishment  to  be  meted  out  to  those  nations  who 
sought  to  afifiict  and  destroy  Judah  and  Jerusalem. 

The  superscription  is  the  last  which  occurs  in  the  book,  and 
this  may  be  regarded  as  an  indication  that  the  prophecies  of 
this  and  the  following  chapter  are  to  be  viewed  as  forming  one 
distinct  prophecy  plainly  divided  into  two  portions,  namely, 
that  ending  with  the  sixth  verse  of  chap,  xiii.,  and  that 
commencing  with  the  seventh  verse  of  that  chapter  and 
running  on  to  the  close  of  the  book. 

The  expressions  made  use  of  (in  verse  i)  respecting  the 
creative  work  of  God,  need  not  be  limited  to  the  work  of 
creation  as  recorded  in  Genesis.  They  may  refer  to  the  con- 
tinual manifestation  of  Divine  power  in  the  upholding  of  all 
things,  as  Scripture  considers  the_upholding  of^he  world  as  a 
continuous  creation  (Xohn_v\j[7).^  The  statement  that  God 
forms  the  spirit  of  man  within  him  is  not  to  be  considered 
as  teaching  any  dogma  of  creationism  as  contrasted  with 
traducianism,  nor  even  as  teaching  that  all  gifts  and  affections 
of  the  mind  are  to  be  ascribed  to  God.  Neither  meaning  is 
suited  to  the  context.^     God's  general  government  over  man 

'  Kohler's  objection  to  the  view  of  Hengstenberg  (who  regards  the  participles 
not  as  used  as  pasts,  but  in  the  sense  of  presents)  is  that  the  Scriptures  always  speak 
of  creation  as  a  completed  act,  though  the  continuance  of  it  is  represented  as 
depending  on  the  Divine  will.  Participles  in  Hebrew  are,  properly  speaking, 
independent  of  time,  and  a  series  of  participles  sometimes  occurs  in  which  some 
refer  to  the  past  and  others  to  the  present.     See  Ps.  civ.  2-4,  referred  to  by  Kohlcr. 

2  It  may  be  well  to  observe  that  the  word  used  in  the  clause  in  relation  to  the 
spirit  of  man,  signifies  properly  to  form,  to  mould,  as  a  potter. 


Ch.  xii.  I.]       THE   TRIALS   AND   VICTORY   OF   ISRAEL.  357 

is  that  referred  to  whereby  he  turns  the  hearts  of  the  children 
of  men  as  it  seems  good  to  his  glory  (Prov.  xxi.  i  ;  Ps. 
xxxiii.  15).  The  prophet  seems  to  have  have  had  in  his 
mind,  Isaiah  xlii.  5,  the  language  of  which  is  here  reproduced. 
Compare  also  Amos  iv.  13  ;  Isaiah  xl.  21-31  ;  and  in  the  New- 
Test,  John  v.  17  ;   Heb.  i.  3. 

The  older  Christian  expositors,  as  Jerome  and  Cyrill, 
and  many  Reformation  divines,  as  Luther,  Tremellius, 
Piscator,  Marck,  etc.,  have  explained  Israel  in  this  and  the 
following  chapters  to  signify  directly  the  Christian  Church. 
Others,  as  L.  Cappellus  and  Calmet,  view  the  name  Israel  as 
used  in  a  double  sense  ;  firstly,  to  indicate  the  literal  Israel 
in  post-exilian  days,  especially  in  the  Maccabean  times,  and 
secondly,    the   Christian    Church,    of  which    Israel   was_ the  /^'^  *^^ 

type, 

The  prophecy,  on  the  other  hand,  has  been  regarded  as 
a  continuation  of  those  preceding  it.  According  to  this 
view,  Zechariah  takes  up  the  thread  of  prophecy  which  he 
had  dropped  at  the  close  of  the  last  chapter,  and  speaks  of 
the  things  which  were  to  follow  in  chronological  order.  The 
events  recorded  in  this  chapter,  according  to  this  view,  are 
those  which  happened  immediately  after  the  rejection  of 
Christ  by  the  Jewish  people.  In  such  a  case  a  sort  of  _tYpica.l  ,  ', 
interpretation  must  be  adopted,  and  the  Christian  Church 
considered  as  the  legitimate  continuation  of  Israel,  as  Heng-  ./  ,  . 
stenberg  expresses  it.  It  will  not  be  forgotten  that  our  Lord 
chose  twelve  apostles,  corresponding  to  the  twelve  tribes  of 
Israel,  and  promised  them,  as  the  reward  of  fidelity,  that  they 
should  judge  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  (Matt.  xix.  28)  ;  a 
promise  which  is  evidently  not  susceptible  of  a  literal  inter- 
pretation, but  which  is  true  in  relation  to  the  Church  of  Christ 
«(comp.  Rev.  xxi.  12,  vii,  4-8),  which,  as  composed  of  Israelites 
and  Gentiles,  is  represented  as  one  olive  tree  (Rom.  xi.  16-21), 
one  flock  (John  x.  16),  one  people,  one  nation  (i  Pet.  ii,  9,  10), 


^  ** 


358  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xii.  i. 

being  the  very  commonwealth  of  Israel  (Eph.  ii.  :2,  iS-22), 
the  Israel  of  God  (Gal.  vi.  16). 

To  this  interpretation  it  has  been  objected,  that  an  Old 
Testament  prophet  could  not  possibly  have  understood  Israel 
to  have  meant  the  Church,  as  Luther,  Tremellius,  Chr.  B. 
Michaelis,  have  supposed.  This  objection  is  met  by  Heng- 
stenberg's  view,  that  the  Church  is  "  the  legitimate  continu- 
ation of  Israel."  The  prophet  may  not,  indeed,  have  thus 
understood  his  own  words.  While  he  imagined  that  he  was 
speaking  about  his  own  people,  he  may  have  been  led  by  the 
Spirit  to  speak  about  the  Israel  of  God. 

But  though  this  method  of  exposition  has  certain  strong 
points,  there  are  peculiar  difficulties  connected  with  it.  On  such 
a  view  it  is  impossible  to  assign  the  same  definite  meaning  to 
"Jerusalem,"  throughout  the  prophecy  ;  and  it  is  almost  im- 
possible to  regard  the  names  Judah,  Jerusalem,  and  the  house 
of  David,  as  designations  of  the  several  portions  or  divisions 
of  the  Christian  Church. 

Others  take  an  entirely  different  view  of  the  prophecy,  and- 
regard  it  as  a  prediction  of  a  campaign  to  be  undertaken  in 
the  near  or  distant  future  against  Jerusalem,  after  that  city 
has  been  repeopled  in  consequence  of  the  restoration  of  the 
Jewish  nation  and  of  the  national  conversion  of  that  people. 
All  such  theories  and  explanations  do  considerable  violence  to 
the  words  of  the  prophet.  They,  moreover,  introduce  peculiar 
features  into  the  events  supposed  to  take  place  at  the  period 
of  the  end,  which  are  at  variance  with  other  parts  of  Holy 
Scripture. 

The  view  which  seems  on  the  whole  to  be  the  most  correct 
is  that  which  regards  the  prophecy  as  partly  traversing  the 
ground  already  trodden  in  the  previous  predictions,  and  refer- 
ring to  the  events  which  took  place  in  the  period  between  the» 
time  of  the  prophet  and  the  day  of  the  Messiah.  Points 
closely  connected  in  lime  with  the  second  advent   are  inter- 


Ch.  xii.  I.]        THE   TRIALS   AND   VICTORY   OF   ISRAEL.  359 

mingled  with  others  more  properly  connected  with  Christ's 
first  coming.  For  there  are  events,  which  are  indeed  conse- 
quences of  the  first  advent,  which  will  not  be  accomplished 
until  the  period  of  the  second.  Such  results  are  sometimes 
spoken  of  by  the  prophets  as  if  they  followed  closely  on  the 
steps  of  the  first.  This  is  the  view  of  the  prophecy  before  us 
which  will  be  found  on  examination  most  in  harmony  with 
the  details  of  the  special  prediction,  and  most  in  accordance 
with  the  analogy  of  the  other  Old  Test,  predictions. 

Many  recent  scholars,  who  assign  to  the  writer  of  this 
portion  a  date  previous  to  the  Babylonian  exile,  look  upon 
the  prophecy  as  a  kind  of  political  divination  of  the  affairs  of 
the  kingdom  of  Judah,  in  which  ardent  hopes  were  expressed 
by  the  prophet,  hopes  destined  however  to  be  sadly  dis- 
appointed, respecting  the  final  result  of  the  struggle  of  the 
Jewish  kingdom  with  the  Babylonian  power.  We  must  refer 
to  our  Introduction  for  a  general  discussion  of  such  theories, 
and  for  the  opinions  propounded  by  eminent  critics  as  to  the 
authorship  of  the  various  portions  of  this  prophecy.  Many 
of  their  suggestions,  however,  as  to  points  of  translation  and 
criticism  must  be  discussed  in  the  course  of  our  general 
remarks  on  this  portion. 

The  view  of  Pressel,  who  considers  the  prophecy  to  refer  to 
the  events  connected  with  the  invasion  of  Sennacherib  and 
his  repulse  from  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  may  be  here  noticed. 
Pressel  argues  that  the  following  points  are  in  favour  of 
his  view: — namely,  (i)  the  remarkable  manner  in  which 
(in  verse  7)  Jahaveh  is  mentioned  as  being  a  shield  to  Jerusa- 
lem amid  the  troubles  which  are  depicted  ;  (2)  the  marvellous 
way  in  which  the  angel  of  the  Lord  overthrew  the  Assyrian 
army,  which  he  considers  to  be  referred  to  in  verse  ^  4 ; 
(3)  the  fact  that,  by  the  march  of  the  Assyrian  army  from 
Libnah  to  Jerusalem,  the  tents  of  Israel  were  at  that  time 
actually  delivered,  before  Jerusalem  itself  was  so  wonderfully 


360  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.        [Ch.  xii.  1-8. 

rescued  (verse  7)  ;  and  (4),  that  the  deliverance  vouchsafed 
must  have  caused  the  princes  of  Judah  in  relation  to  the 
hostile  border  tribes  of  Palestine  to  be  "  as  a  pan  of  fire  among 
wood  and  a  torch  among  sheaves "  (verse  6).  Moreover 
(5)  the  result  of  that  deliverance  Avas  the  exaltation  of  Heze- 
kiah  and  his  family  to  a  similar  position  to  that  which  David 
and  his  house  held  in  former  days. 

Many,  however,  of  these  resemblances  disappear  when 
more  closely  examined.  The  deliverance  vouchsafed  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Judah  prior  to  the  deliverance  of  Jerusalem,  in 
consequence  of  the  army  of  Sennacherib  breaking  up  from  its 
encampment  at  Libnah  in  order  to  march  against  the  capital 
city,  can  scarcely  seriously  be  looked  upon  as  an  adequate 
fulfilment  of  verse  7.  The  reformation,  which  is  spoken  of 
at  the  close  of  the  prophecy  as  the  result  of  the  wonderful 
deliverance  vouchsafed  by  God,  cannot  possibly  refer  to  the 
reformation  effected  by  Hezekiah  in  Judah  years  before  the 
invasion  of  the  Assyrians.  It  must  also  be  remembered  that 
Hezekiah's  successes  over  the  hostile  border  nations  preceded 
the  Assyrian  invasion,  and  no  mention  is  made  of  those  nations 
forming  any  part  of  the  army  of  the  Assyrians  on  that  occasion. 
If  we  were  even  to  assume  that  the  remarkable  passage  in 
verse  10  refers  to  the  death  of  some  prophet  slain  by  the 
people  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem  on  account  of  his  fidelity  to 
Jahaveh,  the  death  of  that  martyr  prophet  ought  to  have 
taken  place  previously  to  the  troubles  related  as  falling  on  the 
nation.  It  cannot  possibly  refer  to  the  death  of  a  pre-exilian 
Zechariah  the  son  of  Berachiah,  or  Jeberechiah  (Isa.  viii.  2). 
Moreover,  it  would  be  strange  for  a  prophet  in  the  days 
of  Hezekiah,  when  announcing  a  deliverance  to  be  vouch- 
safed to  that  king  and  his  people,  to  speak  of  the  house  of 
David,  then  foremost  in  the  rank  of  religious  reformation, 
Bs  concerned  in  the  martyrdom  of  one  of  the  prophets  of 
Jahaveh. 


Ch.  xii.  2.]        THE   TRIALS   AND   VICTORY   OF   ISRAEL.        •      361 

For  these  and  other  reasons  the  interpretation  of  Pressel 
must   be   rejected.     We,  therefore,  proceed    to   examine  in, 
detail  tlie  prophecy  before  us. 

The  signification  of  the  first  clause  in  the  second  verse  is 
tolerably  clear.  "Behold  I  make  Jerusalem  a  bowl  of  reeling 
to  all  nations  round  about."  ^  The  figure  is  one  common  to 
the  prophets,  and  is  used  by  the  prophet  Jeremiah  in  reference 
to  Babylon  (li.  7,  xlix.  12,  xxv.  15-28).  It  occurs  also  in 
Isaiah  (li.  17,  22),  as  well  as  in  the  Psalms  (Ixxv.  8,  E.V. 
verse  9).  In  all  these  passages  a  aip  is  mentioned,  while  in 
the  passage  of  Zechariah  a  bozvl  is  spoken  of  For  we 
have  no  right,  as  Pressel  does,  to  render  the  word  in  this 
passage,  as  equivalent  to  "  a  cup."  The  idea  presented  in 
Zechariah  is  that  of  a  bowl,  or  basin,  so  large  that  all  the 
nations  could  drink  out  of  it  either  together  (Schmieder), 
or  one  after  the  other  in  succession.  The  contents  of  this 
bowl,  hoAvever  enticing  they  might  be  in  appearance  and  to 
the  taste,  were  to  have  the  effect  of  intoxicating  all  those  that 
drank  of  it,  and  of  making  them  reel  as  drunken  men.  This 
signified  that  all  the  attacks  which  the  nations  would  make 
upon  Jerusalem  would  ultimately  be  hurtful  to  those  that 
made  them,  and  cause  their  giddiness  and  confusion. 

The  second  clause  of  the  verse  is  beset  with  some  diffi- 
culty. The  rendering  of  our  Authorised  Version,  "  When 
they  shall  be  in  the  siege  both  against  Judah  and  Jerusalem," 
is  decidedly  incorrect.  The  marginal  rendering,  "  and  also 
against  Judah  (shall  he  be),  which  shall  be  in  the  siege  against 
Jerusalem,"    is   more   defensible,    though    it    is    scarcely   the 


1  The  LXX.,  Viilg.,  Calvin,  Hesselberg,  and  Schegg  understand  by  PjD  the 
threshold,  which  Schegg  explains  as  that  leading  into  the  wine-shop  into  which  the 
drunkard  is  enticed  to  enter.  He  compares  Obad.  16,  and  Isa.  xxix.  2-10.  But 
the  rendering  baivl  or  basin  is  here  the  only  suitable  translation.  The  word  is 
used  in  both  significations  ;  as  a  thi'eshold  in  Ezek.  xl.  8  and  Judg.  xix.  27,  as  a 
basin  in  the  mention  made  of  the  blood  of  the  paschal  lamb,  Exod.  xii.  22,  as  also 
2  Sam.  xvii.  28  ;  I  Kings  vii.  50,  etc. 


362  ZECHARIAH    AND    HIS   TROPIIECIES.  [Ch.  xii.  2. 

correct  translation,  which  is  rather,  "and  also  over  Judah 
shall  be  (the  reeling)  in  the  siege  against  Jerusalem  ;"  for  the 
ellipsis  can  scarcely  be  supplied  by  considering  the  word 
"  bowl,"  in  the  expression  "  bowl  of  reeling,"  to  be  the  subject 
of  the  substantive  verb.  If  the  prophet  meant  to  have  ex- 
pressed such  an  idea,  he  would,  as  Rosenmiiller  has  observed, 
have  used  some  such  phrase  as  "  shall  be  poured  out  upon 
Judah."  The  subject  of  the  verb  can,  however,  easily  be  sup- 
plied from  the  governed  genitive  (as  Lange  has  done),  espe- 
cially as  that  word  expresses  the  main  point  of  the  passage. 

This  view  of  Lange  is  not  substantially  different  from  that 
of  Keil,  who  remarks  that  the  phrase  to  be  ttpon  is  used  in 
the  signification  of  to  happen,  to  occur,  to  come  upon  one.  Keil 
thinks  that  the  subject  of  the  verb  is  best  regarded  as  taken 
from  the  former  sentence,  "  that  which  comes  upon  Jerusalem 
will  also  come  upon  Judah  in  the  siege  against  Jerusalem." 
Ewald  renders,  "  also  over  Judah  will  it  come  with  the  siege," 
i.e.,  Judah  also  shall  be  compelled  to  advance  to  the  siege 
against  Jerusalem.  This  translation  is  open  to  grave  excep- 
tions, though  it  has  been  adopted  by  a  large  number  of 
eminent  critics.^     Knobel  supposes  Jahaveh  to  be  the  subject 

'  Ewald's  rendering  is  substantially  the  same  as  that  of  Rosenmiiller,  "  it  will  also 
be  upon  Judah,"  that  is,  it  will  be  incumbent  on  Judah  to  be  "  in  the  siege  against 
Jerusalem."  This  is  the  sense  which  is  given  in  the  loose  paraphrase  of  the  Targum, 
and  the  mode  in  which  Jerome  explains  his  rendering  "  sed  et  Juda  erit  in  obsidione 
contra  Jerusalem"  {Vulg.).  The  same  interpretation  is  given  by  Kinichi,  Drusius, 
and  by  perhaps  the  majority  of  the  scholars  of  his  day,  followed  by  Hitzig,  Maurer, 
Eertheau,  and  other  critics  of  the  modern  school.  It  is  unsatisfactoiy  to  appeal  to 
the  meaning  of  71^  in  2  Sam.  xviii,  li  ;  Ezek.  xlv.  17  ;  Ps.  Ivi.  13  (E.  V.  verse  12). 
For  in  such  a  case  we  should  expect  the  verb  to  be  followed  by  nVH^'  or  Dn^H? 
(Kohler,  Keil).  Geiger  {Urschrift,  pp.  57,  58)  thinks  that  this  passage  refers  to  the 
struggle  which  took  place  in  late  post-exilian  days  against  the  nobles  in  Jerusalem 
who  were  often  upheld  by  foreign  power,  and  that  the  prophet  predicts  a  union  of 
Judah  and  Joseph  against  the  careless  shepherds,  or  the  house  of  David  and  the  Levi- 
tical  and  priestly  families.  Geiger  considers  the  7^  to  be  a  later  correction  designed 
to  conceal  the  statement  of  this  hostile  feeling  which  existed  in  the  days  of  the  ])ro- 
phet.  This  idea  is  based  entirely  on  conjecture  and  is  opposed  to  the  context.  Keil 
and  Kohler  have  perhaps  rightly  objected  to  the  view  which  considers  that  7iri  »)D 
must  be  supplied  as  the  subject  of  the  subst.  verb  here,  and  have  noticed  that  in 


Ch.  xii.  2.]        THE  TRIALS   AND  VICTORY  OF   ISRAEL.  ^6^ 

of  the  verb  ''  will  be,"  and  that  the  phrase  "  to  be  over  "  is 
used  in  the  meaning  of  protecting.  But,  in  the  first  case,  the 
examples  Knobel  has  referred  to  are  cases  where  the  pre- 
position is  used  with  other  verbs,  and  not  with  the  verb  sub- 
stantive, and  the  sudden  change  of  person  in  the  verse  cannot 
be  justified  by  appealing  to  a  comparison  of  verses  6  and  9 
with  verses  7  and  8,  or  with  chap.  xiv.  2,  3.  We  would  gladly 
adopt  the  translation  of  Knobel,  if  it  could  be  sustained  on 
critical  grounds,  but  the  arguments  adduced  in  its  favour 
appear  to  us  insufficient.  Pusey  thinks  that  "  the  burden 
of  the  Lord"  is  "the  only  natural  subject,"  but  that  phrase 
is  too  remote  from  the  verb  to  admit  of  its  being  regarded  as 
the  "  natural  subject." 

The  general  sense  of  the  passage  is,  however,  plain.  Judah 
was  to  experience  the  same  fate  as  Jerusalem.  It  has  been 
supposed  by  some  that  the  prophet  predicts  that  the  people 
of  Judah  should  be  found  arrayed  among  the  hostile  forces 
marshalled  against  Jerusalem,  that  they  should  be  forced  to 
assume  such  a  position  by  reason  of  the  enemies  round  about, 
but  that  after  a  certain  time  the  people  of  Judah  would  be 
able  to  break  away  from  the  ranks  of  the  hostile  army,  and 
would  ultimately  assist  the  beleaguered  citizens  of  Jerusalem. 
This  interpretation  finds  no  real  support  in  the  language  of 
this  passage,  or  of  that  in  chap.  xiv.  14.  It  is  not  correct  to 
speak  of  any  contrast  being  drawn  here  between  Judah  and 
Jerusalem.  Verses  5  and  6  are  totally  opposed  to  such  an. 
idea,  and  the  very  use  of  the  particle  (D^l)  in  verse  2,  as  Keil„ 
has  observed,  denotes  the  reverse  of  a  contrast  between  two 
parties. 

such  a  case  the  construction  with  ?  would  have  been  used,  in  place  of  the  first 
717.  But  no  such  difficulty  lies  in  the  way  of  Lange's  opinion,  namely,  to  supply 
the  subject  of  that  verb  from  the  genitive  (7U"I),  as  above.  Kohler  prefers  to 
supply  ")i^^  ^iege,  but,  as  Keil  has  observed,  though  the  siege  of  a  city  or  a 
fortress  (Deut.  xx.  20)  may  be  spoken  of,  that  expression  cannot  be  well  used  of  a 
land  or  country. 


364  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS   PROrHECIES.  [Ch.  xii.  ?,. 

It  has  been  supposed  that  in  the  expression  found  in 
verse  3,  "  in  that  day  I  will  make  Jerusalem  a  stone  of 
burden  to  all  the  peoples,"  a  reference  is  made  to  a  cus- 
tom, alluded  to  by  St.  Jerome,  as  existing  in  the  cities  of 
Palestine  even  as  late  as  his  own  day.  According  to  that 
custom,  round  heavy  stones  used  to  be  placed  in  villages, 
towns  and  castles,  in  order  that  the  young  men  might  test 
their  strength  by  lifting  them  up,  some  raising  them  as  high 
as  their  knees,  others  elevating  them  above  their  heads. 
Jerome  mentions  that  he  himself  saw  a  very  heavy  globe 
of  brass  made  use  of  at  Athens  for  a  similar  purpose.  The 
stone,  however,  of  which  the  prophet  speaks  was  not  such 
a  rounded  stone,  but  one  with  sharp  edges  by  which  those 
who  sought  to  raise  it  were  lacerated.  Keil,  therefore,  is 
is  more  correct  in  considering  that  the  figure  is  taken  from 
the  operations  connected  with  building.  In  vain  should  all 
the  nations  round  about  seek  to  fit  the  stone  of  Jerusalem 
into  any  of  the  political  structures  which  they  might  seek  to 
erect.  All  their  efforts  to  raise  that  burdensome  stone  would 
prove  injurious  to  themselves.' 

So  far  from  the  people  of  Judah  being  represented  in  our 
passage  as  compelled  to  bear  arms  against  Jerusalem,  which 
we  regard  as  a  simple  invention  of  the  commentators,  the 
very  reverse  is  rather  to  be  concluded  from  the  verse  that 
follows  (verse  4) — "  In  that  day,  'tis  the  declaration,  or  utter- 
ance, of  Jahaveh,  I  will  smite  every  horse  (among  the  cavalry 
of  the  attacking  nations)  with  terror,  and  his  rider  with 
madness,  and  upon  the  house  of  Judah  I  will  open  mine  eyes, 
and  every  horse  of  the  peoples  I  will  smite  with  blindnes.s." 
That  is,  the  Lord  would  cause  the  utmost  confusion   among 


'  We  may  indeed  refer  to  such  passages  as  Dan.  ii.  45  ;  Isa.  xxviii.  16  ;  Ps. 
cxviii.  22  ;  but  we  must  remember  that,  with  the  exception  of  the  passage  in  the 
Psalms,  there  is  really  no  connexion  between  any  of  those  passages  and  that  in 
Zech.  xii.  3,  save  that  in  all  of  them  mention  is  made  of  "a  stone." 


Ch.  xii.  4-7.]     THE   TRIALS   AND   VICTORY   OF   ISRAEL.  365 

the  enemies  of  his  people  by  sending  upon  them  the  madness, 
blindness,  and  terror,  once  threatened  against  Israel  for  their 
sin  (Deut.  xxviii.  28),  which  sore  judgments  were  now  to 
be  turned  against  their  adversaries  (Deut.  xxx.  7;  Isa.  li.  22, 
23).  The  terrified  horses  of  the  cavalry  of  the  foe  are 
represented  as  unable  any  longer  to  be  guided  by  bit  and 
bridle.  The  riders  in  their  madness  are  described  as  unable 
to  manage  their  steeds,  while  the  steeds  themselves  are 
portrayed  as  struck  with  blindness,  and,  therefore,  unable  to 
escape  from  the  dangers  around  them.  While  the  enemies  of 
Israel  are  represented  in  such  straits,  at  the  very  moment 
when  they  imagined  that  they  had  gained  the  victory,  and 
while,  instead  of  chasing  their  foes  in  headlong  flight,  they 
themselves  are  described  as  rushing  upon  utter  destruction 
(comp.  2  Kings  vi.  17-19),  Jahaveh  would  open  his  eyes  in 
mercy  and  love  upon  his  people  the  house  of  Judah  (i  Kings 
viii.  29 ;  Neh.  i.  6  ;  Ps.  xxxii.  8  ;  Jer.  xxiv.  6  ;  Ezek.  xx.  7). 
There  would  be  no  confusion  or  disunion  in  the  ranks  of 
Israel,  or  any  desire  on  the  part  of  the  people  of  Judah  to 
abandon  Jerusalem  to  her  fate  in  order  that  the  rest  of  the 
people  might  escape.  Nay,  "the  princes  of  Judah  shall  say 
in  their  hearts,  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  are  a  strength  to 
me  in  Jahaveh  of  hosts  their  God,"  i.e.,  who  is  their  God  and 
ours  also.  By  reason  of  this  very  union,  which  the  prophet 
contrasts  with  the  disunion  created  by  Divine  Providence  in 
the  ranks  of  the  foe,  Jahaveh  would  in  that  day  make  the 
princes  of  Judah  "as  a  pan  of  fire  among  faggots,  and  as  a 
torch  of  fire  in  a  sheaf,  and  they  should  devour  upon  the  right 
and  upon  the  left  all  the  nations  (peoples)  round  about,  and 
(as  a  consequence  thereof)  Jerusalem  shall  dwell  upon  her 
base  (place)  in  Jerusalem." 

The  translation  of  verse  7  according  to  the  received  Hebrew 
text  is  clear — "  And  Jahaveh  will  first  save  the  tents  of  Ju- 
dah."   But  there  is  another  reading,  which  is  that  of  only  a  few 


3^6  ZECPIARIAH   AND   IIIS   rROPIIECIES.  [Ch.  xii.  7. 

MSS.,  but  is  supported  by  the  authority  of  the  LXX.,  Vul;^. 
and  Syr.,  namely,  "and  Jahaveh  will  save  the  tents  of  Judah 
as  in  former  days." 

If  the  ordinary  Hebrew  text  be  adopted,  the  passage 
states  that  the  people  of  Judah  should  be  first  delivered, 
and  that  afterwards  deliverance,  would  be  vouchsafed  to  the 
beleaguered  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem.  There  may  be  in  this 
case  a  designed  antithesis  in  the  use  of  the  word  "  ^enU " 
in  reference  to  Judah,  as  contrasted  with  the  splendid  build- 
ings of  the  capitaP  (Hengstenberg).  As  far  as  this  in- 
dividual passage  is  concerned,  the  words  might  signify  the 
tents  in  which  the  people  were  to  dwell  when,  under  pressure 
from  the  forces  of  the  enemy  besieging  Jerusalem,  they 
should  be  forced  to  encamp  outside  the  walls  of  the  capital. 
This  is  the  view  taken  by  Kohlcr  and  others.  It  is  not,  how- 
ever, borne  out  by  the  context. 

If  the  reading  of  the  text  indicated  by  the  ancient  ver- 
sions be  preferred,  the  passage  would  simply  affirm  that  the 
deliverance  to  be  vouchsafed  to  the  people  of  Judah  would 
be  similar  to  that  which  God  had  given  before  to  their  fore- 
fathers. The  deliverance  was  to  be  like  that  vouchsafed  to 
them  when  the  Lord  brought  them  forth  out  of  Egypt,  or  like 
some  of  the  mighty  deliverances  wrought  in  the  da\'s  of  the 
Judges.  In  this  case  a  distinction  is  supposed  to  exist  between 
the  people  of  Judah  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  though 
the  contrast  is  not  so  decided  as  in  the  former  translation. 

■  Ezek.  xxxviii.  ii,  referred  to  by  Hengstenberg,  is  not  a  parallel  passage.  No 
mention  is  made  there  of  "  tents,"  nor  is  any  contrast  drawn  between  tlie  city  and 
the  country.  The  expression  "  tents  "  is  often  used  as  a  synonym  for  "  /louse-s  "  or 
buildings  of  any  kind.  This  occurs  chiefly  in  poetry,  and  sometimes  in  prose 
(Jer.  iv.  20,  XXX.  18;  Job  xxi.  28;  Ps.  Ixxviii.  55,  Ixxxiv.  10;  i  Kings  viii.  66, 
etc.).  There  is  no  ground  for  the  notion  of  Calvin,  which  Hengstenberg  refers 
to  with  approbation,  that  by  "  ie>Us"  the  prophet  really  means  /ih/s.  If  mean 
and  low  habitations  are  suppo.sed  to  be  signified  by  "huts,"  in  opposition  to 
buildings  of  a  finer  and  nobler  kind,  the  word  /cn/s  would  not  convey  such  an  im- 
pression.    It  might  refer  to  the  "  tents  "  of  the  Jews  if  viewed  as  combatants. 


Ch.  xii.  7.]         THE   TRIALS   AND   VICTORY   OF   ISRAEL.  367 

According  to  either  rendering  the  passage  indicates  that 
the  dehverance  of  the  people  of  Judah  would  precede  that  of 
Jerusalem.     This  was  to  occur  in  order  that  all  vainglorious 
boasting  on  the  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  capital  might 
be  rendered  impossible.      According  to  the  second  reading, 
however,  taken  in  connexion  with  verse  6,  the  meaning  would 
most  distinctly  be  that  the  deliverance  of  the  nation  in  general 
would  not  be  brought  about  by  the  sturdy  resistance  of  the 
capital  city,  conducted  to  a  successful  issue  by  the  natural 
leaders  of  the  people.     That  deliverance  would  be  achieved, 
as  in  former  days,  in   the  times  of  the  Judges,  by  means  of 
deliverers  raised  up  from  among  those  who  were  of  less  note 
and  position  in  the  land.     This  meaning  might  indeed    be 
deduced  from  either  translation ;  for  in  most  of  the  cases  where 
such   deliverers   were   raised    up,    the   tribes   to  which    they 
severally  belonged  were  usually  the  first  participators  in  the 
deliverance.     The   close   of  the   verse   is,  however,   more   in 
harmony  with  that  reading  by  which  a  distinct  allusion   is 
made  to  the  mercies  granted  to  the  nation  in  former  days. 
For   the   reason    assigned   why  salvation    should   first    com- 
mence at  the  tents  of  Judah  is  expressly  stated  to  be  "  in 
order  that  the  glory  (DIKBD)  of  the  house  of  David,  and  the 
glory  (n")^i3D)  of  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  may  not  mag- 
nify itself  over  (the   glory  of)  Judah."     The  reference  is  to 
martial  glory  like  that  which  Barak  ^  would  have  obtained  in 
greater  measure,  had  he  gone  forth  alone  to   the  battle  at 
the  bidding  of  the  prophetess  Deborah.     The  very  mode   in 
which  the  victory  here  prophesied  should  be  obtained,   and 
the  deliverance  be  achieved,  would  prove  that  the  victory  was 
the  Lord's.      But  there  is  no  reason  whatever  to   conclude 
from  the   passage  that  the  deliverance  promised  would   be 
wrought  without  human   instrumentality  or  human  weapons, 

^  See  Judges  iv.  9,  "imXSri-     Compare,  too,  the  same  word  used  of  martial 
glory,  Isa.  x.  12,  xx.  5,  and  perhaps  Ps.  Ixxxix.  18. 


368  7ECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiL  S. 

as  Dr.  Pusey  seems  to  think.  Compare  the  notable  expres- 
sion used  by  David  with  regard  to  his  contest  with  GoHath, 
although  in  that  combat  both  human  instrumentality  and 
human  weapons  were  duly  made  use  of  (i  Sam.  xvii.  47). 
The  victory  spoken  of  by  Zechariah  would  be  no  less  the 
Lord's  even  if  human  agency  were  used  in  gaining  it. 

The  deliverance  manifested  first  to  the  people  of  Judah 
was  to  be  likewise  shared  by  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem. 
"  In  that  day,"  said  the  prophet,  "  Jahavch  will  defend  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  and  he  that  is  tottering  among  them 
in  that  day  shall  be  as  David,  and  the  house  of  David  as 
God,  as  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh  before  them."  A  deliverer,  or 
deliverers,  would  be  raised  up  from  among  the  people  of 
Judah,  but  not  from  the  chiefs  of  the  people  nor  from  the 
royal  family  of  David.  In  this  deliverance,  which  should 
come  from  an  unexpected  quarter,  the  inhabitants  of  Jeru- 
salem would  also  share.  Courage  would  be  infused  into 
their  breasts  by  reason  of  the  conviction  that  the  Lord  was 
with  them;  the  tottering  and  the  feeble  would  go  forth  boldly, 
as  David  did  to  the  combat  with  Goliath  ;  and  the  house 
of  David,  those  in  authority,  whether  actually  members  of 
that  regal  family  or  persons  occupying  a  similar  position, 
would  be  filled  with  Divine  enthusiasm,  and  would  be  as 
God,  acting  in  his  spirit  and  for  his  cause,  even  as  the  Angel 
of  Jahaveh,  the  great  representative  of  his  person  and  power, 
which  great  angel  would  go  before  them  and  act  invisibly 
as  their  leader  and  guide.i 

The  prophecy,  so  far  as  has  been  as  yet  commented  on,  is 

1  Elohim  is  regarded  by  von  Ilofmann  here  as  meaning  other  supernatural  beings 
{Schriftb.  i.  76).  Comp.  Ps.  viii.  6,  xcvii.  7;  i  Sam.  xxviii.  13;  Exod.  xv.  11. 
In  this  case  there  would  be  a  climax  in  the  passage.  Compare  the  expression  in 
2  Sam.  xiv.  17.  But  the  last  clause,  "  as  the  angel  of  Jahaveh,"  is  perhaps  better 
regarded  as  explanatory  of  the  preceding,  as  we  h.ave  taken  it  above.  On  the 
Angel  of  Jahavch  as  a  leader,  see  Exod.  xxiii.  20-23  5  Josh.  v.  13-15.  But  i  Sam. 
xxix.  9  is  not  a  case  in  point.  The  expression  there  is  "as  an  angel  of  God," 
not  "  as  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh." 


Ch.  xii.  3.]        THE   TRIALS   AND   VICTORY   OF   ISRAEL.  369 

a  prediction  of  what  actually  occurred  in  the  glorious  days  of 
Israel's  revival  under  the  Maccabee  chieftains.  Our  con- 
viction on  this  point  is  so  strong,  that  if  we  felt  compelled  to 
dissent  from  the  traditional  view  with  respect  to  the  author- 
ship of  the  book,  we  should  unhesitatingly  adopt,  not  the  view 
at  present  fashionable  among  scholars,  led  by  the  authority  of 
such  critics  as  Bleek,  Hitzig  and  Ewald,  but  that  maintained 
by  Geiger  and  Bottcher,  the  latter  an  authority  not  inferior  to 
Ewald  in  grammatical  questions,  and  as  acute  a  critic,  namely, 
that  so  far  from  the  book,  whether  considered  as  to  its  earlier 
visions  or  its  later  predictions,  having  been  composed  in  pre- 
exilian  times,  the  language  of  both  parts  bears  strong  traces  of 
a  later  era.  In  fact,  if  the  date  of  the  book  were  to  be  deter- 
mined by  clear  references  to  facts  of  history,  it  would  have  to 
be  assigned  to  a  period  not  earlier  than  the  time  of  the  Mac- 
cabees. 

The  events  predicted  in  this  chapter  are  not  exactly  the 
same  as  those  mentioned  in  the  prophecy  contained  in  chap- 
ters ix.  and  x.  Some  events  mentioned  there  are  not  noticed 
here,  and  vice  versa. 

The  prophecy  does  not  speak  of  all  nations  being  gathered 
together  against  Jerusalem,  but  merely  announces  that  those 
nations  or  peoples  that  were  round  about  Jerusalem  should 
gather  themselves  together  against  her.  It  is  strange  that 
Kliefoth  should  have  made  an  important  point  of  all  nations 
being  gathered  together  against  Jerusalem.  "All  the 
peoples  "  of  verse  3  are  to  be  identified  with  "all  the  nations 
around."  There  is  no  reason  whatever  to  consider  the  pas- 
sage as  predicting  that  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  are  to 
be  gathered  against  Jerusalem.  Moreover  such  a  gathering 
would  be  an  impossibility.  The  expression  (in  verse  3)  the 
earth,  or  the  land  (V"I^^),  proves  nothing,  as  that  word  is  used 
more  frequently  in  the  narrower  than  in  the  wider  signification. 

It  is  notorious  that  Jerusalem  was  indeed  made  a  bowl  of 

B  B 


370  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS   TROPHECIES.        [Ch.  xii.  3-6. 

reeling,  or  a  burdensome  stone,  to  the  various  nations,  which, 
in  the  period  between  the  restoration  from  the  captivity  and  the 
coming  of  our  Lord,  sought  to  attack  that  city,  or  to  destroy 
the  Jewish  rehgion.  Iduma^ans,  Philistines,  Arabians,  Am- 
monites, Moabitcs,  Tyrians,  Syrians  and  Greeks  made  various 
attempts  against  the  Jewish  people  and  against  Jerusalem. 
They  were  sometimes  successful  for  a  short  time,  but  never 
for  any  lengthened  period.  Their  attempts  were  always 
foiled,  often  with  great  loss  to  themselves,  sometimes  to  their 
utter  ruin.  These  facts  are  well  known  to  every  student  of 
the  history  of  that  time,  and  do  not  require  to  be  specially 
recapitulated.  If  it  be  insisted  on  that  the  prophecy  even 
speaks  of  Jews  as  forming  part  of  those  foes  who  should  be- 
siege the  holy  city, — though  we  maintain  that  this  cannot  be 
fairly  concluded  from  the  words  of  the  prophet, — the  fact 
might  be  recalled  to  remembrance  that  during  this  period  many 
Jews  actually  did  engage  in  arms  against  their  people  and  city. 
There  were  Jewish  traitors,  as  Menelaus  for  instance,  whose 
evil  actions  are  narrated  in  2  Mace.  iv.  and  v.,  and  others, 
who,  for  private  ends  and  advancement,  sought  at  that  terrible 
crisis  to  procure  the  ruin  of  their  country  and  of  their  faith. 

The  result  of  the  attempt  to  Hellenise  the  Jews  and  to 
subvert  their  religion,  in  the  early  days  of  Antiochus 
Epiphancs,  was  at  first  so  considerable  that  for  a  time  it 
seeemd  likely  to  be  successful.  But  the  eyes  of  the  Lord 
were  over  his  people,  and  his  ears  were  open  to  their  cry. 
The  want  of  common  wisdom  displayed  by  their  heathen  foes 
was  remarkable ;  and  the  victories  gained  by  small  and  poorly 
equipped  bands  of  foot-soldiers  over  well-appointed  armies, 
strongly  supported  by  a  numerous  cavalry,  formed  a  most 
noteworthy  feature  of  this  remarkable  struggle.  Deliverance 
was  vouchsafed  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  Maccabee 
heroes,  who  were  raised  up  from  among  the  people,  and  did 
not  themselves  belong  to  the  nobles  or  princes  of  Jerusalem. 


Ch.xii.  6,  7.]     THE   TRIALS   AND   VICTORY   OF   ISRAEL.  37 1 

Grotius  has  well  observed  in  reference  to  this  prophecy  that 
the  deliverance  of  Jerusalem  and  of  the  cities  of  Judsea  did 
not  come  from  Jerusalem,  but  was  effected  by  means  of  the 
Maccabees  from  Modin. 

The  Maccabee  heroes,  however,  well  understood  the  impor- 
tance of  the  city  of  Jerusalem  as  the  centre  of  the  national 
religion,  and  were  not  content  with  procuring  their  own  safety 
or  aggrandisement.  They  rescued  Jerusalem  and  its  inhabi- 
tants by  force  from  the  hands  of  the  spoiler.  They  went 
forth  to  each  of  their  battle-fields,  fully  recognising  that  they 
had  no  power  or  strength  of  their  own,  but  that  their  hope 
and  trust  was  in  the  Lord  of  hosts.  Their  courage  was 
daunted  by  no  dangers,  they  were  fearless  before  the  greatest 
number  of  their  foes.  Though  occasionally  unsuccessful, 
they  fought  and  conquered.  As  a  pan  of  fire  can  easily 
ignite  and  destroy  any  number  of  faggots  among  which  it 
is  placed,  so  their  enemies  were  but  fuel  for  them  ;  as  a 
blazing  torch  in  a  bundle  of  corn  rapidly  consumes  the 
sheaf,  so  did  the  Jewish  heroes  devour  their  enemies  on  every 
side  (comp.  Num.  xiv.  9  ;  Obad.  18).  The  desecrated  city 
of  Jerusalem  was  reconsecrated,  the  defiled  temple  purified^ 
and  sanctified  anew.  The  power  of  faith  achieved  the  victory. 
By  it  they  "  escaped  the  edge  of  the  sword,  out  of  weakness 
were  made  strong,  waxed  valiant  in  fight,  turned  to  flight  the 
armies  of  the  aliens  "  (Heb.  xi.  34). 

The  Jewish  nation  was  delivered  in  such  a  manner  that  no 
occasion  of  boasting,  nor  any  special  martial  glory  was  afforded 
to  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem.  They  were  the  rescued,  not 
the  rescuers.  "The  house  of  David,"  conspicuous  as  it  was 
at  the  period  of  the  return  from  Babylon,  in  the  person  of 
Zerubbabel,  the  prince  of  the  house  of  David,  and  the  Head  of 
the  Captivity,  obtained  no  new  honours  in  the  remarkable 
struggles  of  the  Maccabean  era.  After  the  death  of  Zerub- 
babel, the  house  of  David  seems  to  have  contented  itself  with 


3/2 


ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    rROPHECIES.      [Ch.  xii.  7,  8. 


r 


a  mere  titular  dignity  for  ages,  and  ultimately  fell  into 
political  insignificance.  It  lost  even  that  titular  position  as 
one  of  the  consequences  of  the  mighty  struggles  which  estab- 
lished the  supremacy  of  the  Asmonaean  princes.^ 

This  is  a  remarkable  fact  when  viewed  in  connexion  with 
the  prophecy  of  Zechariah.     For  the  prophet  evidently  con- 

1  The  following  is  tlie  list  as  given  by  Ilerzfeld  of  the  Davidic  princes,  who  either 
exercised  some  real  authority,  or  held  a  titular  rank  in  the  eyes  of  the  Jewish  people, 
down  to  the  establishment  of  the  Asmonteans.     The  authorities  for  the  list  are  the 
Breviarium  of  the  pseudo-Philo  and  the  Seder-olam-zutta,  which,  though  really 
apocryphal  and  unhistoric  in  many  of  their  statements — the  list  of  the  latter  is 
especially  defective — yet,  so  far  as  the  names  given  are  concerned  (as  Herzfeld 
has   ably  shown  in  his  Excursus    Ueber  die  Abkommlitige  Davids  in    toid  iiach 
dem  Exil),  have  drawn  from  historical  sources.     The  numbers  placed  after  the 
respective   names   are  those   of  the   years  during  which  each   prince   exercised 
his  authority.     Those  given  in  the  first  three  cases  are  plamly  legendary.     The 
names  as  given  in  the  Breviarium  are  : — Serubabel,  58;  Resa  Mysciollam  (XCH 
uTi^),  66,  I  Chron.  iii.  19;  Joannes  ben  Resa,  53.      Herzfeld  shows  that  this 
latter  was  probably  the  brother  of  the  former,  Resa  being  a  title,  not  a  proper 
name.         He  was   probably   identical  with    Hananiah   the  son   of    Zerubbabel, 
I  Chron.  iii.  19.     There  seems  here  to  be  a  gap,  which  Herzfeld  would  supply 
from  the  other  source  with  the  names  of  Meshesabel,  Berechja  and  MeshuUam. 
Then  follow  in   the  Breviarium,  Judas,  the  first  with   the  surname  Hyrkanus, 
14   years;  Josephus  I.,  7  years;  Abner  Semei,  II;  Elyh  Matathias,    12;    Asar 
(Iki'n)  Maat,    II;  Nagid    (T'Ji)    Artaxat,    10   (possibly    the  same   as    ^07701, 
Luke  iii.  25);  Agai   Helly,  8;  Maslot  Na,uni,  7  [these  last  two  names  are  sus- 
piciously  like  those  in   Luke  iii.  25];  Amos  Syrach,  14;  Matathias  Siloa,  10; 
Josephus  the  younger,  60 ;  and  Jannceus,  the  second  with  the  surname  Hyrkanus, 
16.    Josephus  the  younger  is  mentioned  in  Jewish  histoiy  as  honoured  by  Ptolemy. 
I  He  seems  to  have  been  identical  with  the  Joseph  ben  Tobiah  mentioned  by  Josephus 
;  (Antiq.  xii.  4,  §  2).  The  dignity  of  "  prince  "  did  not  always  descend  from  father  to 
I  son,  as  is  proved,  as  Herzfeld  remarks,  by  the  fact  that  it  is  impossible  for  princes 
Ho   have  followed    one   another  in  direct  descent  at  such  short  periods  as  those 
assigned  in  the  list  from  Josephus  L  to  Amos  Syrach.     The  history  of  Hyrkanus, 
holes  Herzfeld,  as  given  by  Josephus  {Antiq.  xii.  4,  §  6),  cannot  be  understood 
jimtil   it   is   observed   that   he   was    the  son   of  a  prince   who  sought  to  attain 
itmto  the  same  dignity  as  his  father  had  before  him.    Josephus  calls  him  simply 
Hyrkanus,  but  he  must  also  have  had  a  Hebrew  name.     His  attempt   to  raise 
up  the  Davidic  throne  was  opposed  by  Simon  the  Just,  and  was  consequently  un- 
successful.     According  to  the  Breviarium  he  was  prince  from  196  to  180,  or  from 
179  to  162.     From  the  Restoration  down  to  the  times  of  the  Maccabees  a  descen- 
dant of  the  Davidic  family  held  a  kind  of  chieftainship;  he  was  termed  variously 
N'^fc'J,   NtJ'n,  IK',   and  "t^J3,  which  variety  of  title,  Herzfeld  thinks,  points  to  a 
fluctuating  authority.     After  the  hopes  of  the  Davidic  family  were  finally  crushed 
by  the  elevation  of  the  Maccabee  princes  to  the  throne,  some  of  the  heads  of  that 


Ch.  xii.  7,  8.]       THE   TRIALS   AND   VICTORY   OF   ISRAEL.  373 

siders  the  family  or  house  of  David  as  of  special  interest 
and  speaks  of  it  as  such  in  the  close  of  this  particular 
prophecy.  For  although  that  family  was  destined  to  play  a 
very  subordinate  part  in  the  deliverance  here  predicted,  the 
prophet  regards  it  as  one  which  would  possess  peculiar  im- 

family  appear  to  have  migrated  to  Babylon,  and  their  chief  was  known  there  as 
the  Prince  of  the  Captivity.  Makrizi  speaks  of  an  emigration  to  Babylon  by  a 
Jewish  party  about  300  years  after  the  restoration  of  the  second  temple.  See 
l^^xz{€id!%  GescJiichte  des  Volkes  Israels  (1847-1857),  vol.  i.  pp.  257-8,  378-387; 
vol.  ii.  194,  396.  Milman,  in  his  History  of  the  "Jenvs,  vol.  ii.  p.  483,  ff.,  also 
observes  that  the  Prince  of  the  Captivity  in  Babylon  was  descended  from  the  house 
of  David. 

It  ought  to  be  noted  here  tliat  the  writer  of  the  Breviarium  was  of  course  not 
Philo,  nor  is  the  Breviarium  to  be  found  in  the  best  editions  of  his  works.  It  is, 
however,  in  the  edition  of  J-  Annius,  and  has  been  separately  reprinted.  It  is 
described  in  Fabricii  Bibl.  Grcsca,  Hamb.,  M.D.CCVIII.,  vol.  iii.  lib.  iv.  4,  §  2,  44. 
Fabricius  notes  that  the  author  speaks  of  having  brought  down  his  third  book, 
"usque  ad  Agrippam  tertium  Judseorum  regem,  quern  ait  auctor  nugivendulus 
regnasse  annis  xxx.  usque  ad  hunc  ultimum  annum  aetatis  mese  decrepita:." 
Fabricius  says  further  :  "  Hoc  breviarium  Philoni  a  Johanne  Annio  Viterbiensi 
suppositum,  editum  et  commentario  illustratum  cum  ceteris  ejus  commentis  sjepe 
prodiit  post  editionem  primam  Romanam,  anno  1498,  fol.  Vide  Ilanckium  libro 
laudato,  p.  90  et  96  seq.  Tantum  addam  in  prresenti,  quod  R.  Azarias  in  Meor 
Enayim,  c.  xxxii.,  idem  breviarium  Pseudo-Philonis,  sive  ut  ipse  Hebraice  vocat, 
Jedidcei  Alexandrini,  sed  hinc  inde  interpolatum  retulit  Hebraice,  e  quo  latine 
conversum  exhibet  Guil.  Henricus  Vorstius  in  Commentario  ad  Chronologiam  Da- 
vidis  Ganz,  p.  308-312.  Neque  aliud  puto  esse  scriptum,  quam  hoc  Pseudo-Phi- 
lonis breviarium,  quod  in  catalogo  Bibl.  Bodleianae  memoratur  inter  Philonis  scripta 
liber  de  genealogia  Christi  latine  cum  commentario  Joh.  Annii,  Paris.  1612."  Mr. 
Thomas  V.  Keenan,  B.  A.,  Assist.  Librarian  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  has  kindly 
furnished  me  with  the  title  page  of  Annius'  work,  which  reads:  "  Berosi  Chaldaai 
sacerdotis  reliquorumque  consimilis  argimienti  autorum,  de  antiquitate  Italian  ac 
totius  orbis.  Cum  F.  Joan.  Annij  Viterbensis  Theologi  commentatione,  et  auxesi, 
ac  verborum  reriimque  memorabilium  indice  plenissimo".  2  tom.  Lugd.  1554-5, 
size  16°.  He  adds  the  following  extract  from  the  Breviarium  as  given  by  Annius, 
first  volume,  p.  416  : — "  Regnavit  hie  primus  Herodes  Ascalonita  tyranico  prin- 
cipatu,  annis  triginta  uno,  &  legitimo  sex.  Et  filius  ejus  Archelaus,  annis  novem. 
Herodes  autem  Tetrarcha,  annis  vigintiquatuor  :  cuius  vigesimoprimo  anno  Legatus 
i  nostris  ludseis  ab  Alexadria  missus  adolescens  eram.  Sequutus  est  hunc  Agrippa 
priscus,  annis  septem.  Agrippa  iunior,  annis  septem  &  viginli.  Et  Agrippinus, 
qui  &  Agrippa  vltimus,  annis  triginta,  vsq ;  ad  hunc  vltimum  annum  aetatis 
meae  decrepitas,"  and  adds  that  Brunet  {Manuel  dn  Libraire)  says  that  this  is  a  new 
edition,  of  a  work  first  published,  under  a  somewhat  different  title,  at  Rome,  in 
1498.  Brunet  says  it  has  gone  through  numerous  editions,  but  he  discredits  the 
authority  of  Annius,  whom  he  charges  with  interpolating  wholesale  in  his  extracts. 
He  does  not  mention  the  Paris  ed.  of  16 12,  referred  to  by  Fabricius. 


374  •         ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  xii.  7,  S. 

portancc  in  the  period  succeeding  that  special  deliverance. 
The  writer  would  scarcely  have  spoken  so  much  of  the 
family  of  David  had  he  lived  in  the  Maccabean  era,  when  the 
glory  of  the  house  of  David  was  completely  eclipsed,  and  when 
no  position  in  the  Jewish  state  was  conceded  to  them,  inas- 
much as  they  had  borne  no  conspicuous  part  in  the  religious 
revival  of  that  day.  If  such  allusions  arc  to  be  considered 
•as  affording  an  indication  of  the  date  of  the  composition 
of  the  prophecy,  then  the  prediction  must  be  considered 
as  composed  at  a  time  when  the  house  of  David  occupied 
a  prominent  position,  such  as  it  possessed  in  the  days  of 
Zerubbabel.  It  is,  however,  remarkable  that,  imbued  as  the 
prophet  was  with  the  sense  of  the  coming  glory  of  the  house 
of  David  (as  is  plain  from  verse  8),  he  should  yet  distinctly 
refer  to  a  future  national  deliverance  in  which  the  leaders 
should  be  persons  belonging  to  Judah,  but  neither  inhabitants 
of  Jerusalem  nor  members  of  the  house  of  David. 

The  name  of  Judah  after  the  return  from  captivity  was,  as 
we  have  seen,  the  general  name  given  to  all  the  returned 
exiles,  whether  they  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Judah  or  to  the 
remnants  of  the  other  ten  tribes.  No  valid  objection,  there- 
fore, can  be  made  to  this  reference  of  the  prophecy  on  the 
ground  of  the  Maccabean  chieftains  having  been  members  of 
a  priestly  family,  and,  therefore,  appertaining  to  the  tribe  of 
Levi.  They  were  leaders  and  princes  of  Judah,  in  the  sense 
in  which  the  expression  is  used  in  verse  5.  "The  ten  tribes" 
is  indeed  in  many  respects  a  most  unfortunate  designation. 
At  the  disruption  of  the  kingdoms  the  tribe  of  Levi  natu- 
rally cast  in  its  lot  with  the  kingdom  of  Judah.  Jeroboam 
created  a  special  priesthood  of  his  own  for  his  new  kingdom 
(I  Kings  xii.  31,  3.2,  xiii.  33),  and  forasmuch  as  he  disestab- 
lished the  Levitical  priesthood  throughout  his  dominions,  and 
took  away  their  landed  property  (2  Chron.  xi.  14),  the  Levites, 
whose  adhesion  to  the  new  order  of  things  might  justly  have 


Ch.  xii.  4-8.]    THE   TRIALS   AND   VICTORY   OF    ISRAEL.  375 

been  suspected,  were  driven  to  migrate  in  a  body  to  Judah  and 
Jerusalem  (2  Chron.  xi.  13,  14,  xiii.  9-11),  together  with  many- 
other  persons  belonging  to  the  other  tribes  (2  Chron.  xi.  16). 
Graetz  has  argued  that  these  disestablished  and  disendowed 
Levites  formed  the  greater  part  of  "  the  poor "  and  pious 
men,  the  Ebionites  of  the  Old  Testament,  so  often  alluded  to 
in  the  Psalms.^  Though  we  do  not  agree  Avith  the  theory  of 
Graetz,  it  is  certain  that  the  Levites  and  the  families  of  the 
other  tribes  who  then  migrated  to  Judah  became  so  com- 
mingled with  the  tribe  of  Judah  that  all  alike  were  known  by 
the  name  of  "Jews." 

We  may  here  pause  to  review  the  other  interpretations 
which  have  been  assigned  to  this  prophecy,  so  far  as  it  has 
been  yet  considered.  Hengstenberg  views  the  whole  as  a 
history  of  the  Christian  Church  from  the  commencement 
of  the  period  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ  The  Church 
he  considers  as  having  been  from  its  very  beginning  "  the 
legitimate  continuation  of  Israel."  One  might  very  well 
understand  such  expressions  as  occur  in  verses  4  and  5  to 
refer  to  the  struggle  against  Christianity  in  its  early  days,  in 
which  the  nations  of  the  earth  took  part.  But  it  is  not 
satisfactory  to  explain  the  names  Judah  and  Jerusalem  as 
contrasted  with  one  another  to  signify  "  the  inferior  and 
superior  portions  of  the  covenant  nation  ; "  and  still  less  so  to 
consider  "  the  house  of  David  "  in  verse  7  as  signifying  the 
royal  family  "  as  continued  in  the  princes  and  potentates  in 
the  kingdom  of  God  who  become  partakers  of  the  Spirit." 
For  the  same  expressions  in  verse  10  are  explained  to  denote 
"the  members  of  the  covenant  nation,"  and  must  there 
signify  those  who  had  been  in  rebellion  against  God.  Nor 
can  we  see  according  to  this  interpretation  any  meaning  in 
the  special  statements  of  verse  7. 

'  Graetz,  Monaischrift  des  Judcnthiuns  for  1869,  Die  Ebioniten  des  alten  Testa- 
ments. 


l^G  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS    TROPHECIES.        [Ch.  xii.  2-8. 

Klicfoth  thinks  that  the  prophecy  commences  with  the 
period  of  Christ's  rejection  by  the  Jewish  nation,  spoken  of 
in  chap,  xi.,  and  that  it  reaches  forward  to  a  time  still  future 
when  Israel  as  a  nation  shall  turn  in  repentance  to  their 
long  rejected  king.  The  national  conversion  of  Israel  is,  he 
thinks,  clearly  set  forth  in  chap.  xii.  10,  ff.  By  Jerusalem  and 
its  inhabitants,  and  by  the  house  of  David,  he  considers 
"  Israel  after  the  flesh "  to  be  meant,  against  whom  the 
"burden"  is  announced  in  the  first  verse.  Inasmuch  as 
"Judah"  is  contrasted  with  Jerusalem,  and  the  salvation  of 
Judah  is  represented  in  verse  7  as  earlier  than  that  of  the 
people  of  Israel,  Kliefoth  holds  that  the  Christian  Church  is 
called  by  the  name  of  "Judah"  because  it  originated  with 
the  Jewish  nation,  though  it  was  afterwards  mainly  com- 
posed of  Gentile  adherents.  Just  as  a  political  and  religious 
schism  had  taken  place  in  the  days  of  Rehoboam,  and  two 
rival  kingdoms  were  set  up,  the  one  with  a  false  worship,  the 
other  with  a  true  one,  so  was  it  to  be  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah. 
There  would  be  a  separation  between  the  "  Israel  after  the 
flesh"  and  the  "Israel  after  the  spirit,"  a  schism  of  a  darker 
and  more  terrible  kind  than  that  which  rent  in  twain  the 
kingdom  of  the  twelve  tribes.  Starting  from  this  general 
conception,  Kliefoth  explains  the  declaration  (verse  2)  that 
Jerusalem  was  to  be  made  a  bowl  of  reeling  to  all  the  peoples 
as  referring  to  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  under  Titus.  The  state- 
ment in  the  subsequent  verse,  where  Jerusalem  is  spoken  of 
as  a  burdensome  stone  to  all  peoples,  he  regards  as  fulfilled  in 
the  course  of  ages  by  the  various  crusades  and  the  different 
political  movements  which  affected  Jerusalem  and  the  Jewish 
nation.  The  prophecy  of  verse  2,  which  speaks  of  Judah  as 
experiencing  a  similar  fate,  he  regards  as  fulfilled  in  the 
troubles  which  about  the  same  period  fell  upon  the  Christians, 
commencing  with  their  flight  to  Pella  during  the  temporary 
lull  in   the  siege  of  Jerusalem.      In    all    dangers  God  pro- 


Ch.  xii.  2-8.]     THE   TRIALS   AND   VICTORY   OF   ISRAEL.  577 

mised  to  defend  his  Church,  even  in  days  of  persecution  ;  he 
would  be  with  her  amid  all  the  blindness  and  madness  of  the 
nations  (verses  4,  ff ).  Kliefoth  understands  by  "  the  princes 
of  Judah"  (inverse  5) — which  clause  he  renders  "the  friends," 
or  "familiars  of  Judah"  (a  possible  translation,  to  which  no 
philological  objection  can  be  made) — as  those  from  among- 
the  Gentiles  who  should  attach  themselves  to  believing  Judah, 
that  is,  the  Christian  Church.  Such  are  spoken  of  in  the 
verse  in  question  (according  to  his  exposition)  as  expressing 
their  belief  that  the  preservation  of  Israel  was  due  to  God's 
special  providence,  and  as  anticipating  the  day  when  that  na- 
tion should  form  part  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  Verse  6  would 
then  depict  the  victories  of  the  Cross  in  various  lands,  while  at 
the  same  time,  in  spite  of  all  its  trials,  the  city  of  Jerusalem 
was  to  exist  on  its  own  base.  By  the  tents  of  Judah  in 
verse  7,  Kliefoth  considers  the  Christians  scattered  throughout 
the  world  to  be  meant,  and  the  prophet  predicts  that  salvation 
should  be  bestowed  first  on  the  Gentiles,  in  order  that  the 
Jews  might  be  prevented  from  boasting.  The  remainder  of 
the  prophecy,  according  to  Kliefoth,  refers  to  the  future 
national  conversion  of  the  Jewish  nation.  In  describing  that 
event  he  observes  that  no  special  glory  is  spoken  of  as  be- 
longing to  Israel.  The  terms  used  in  verse  8  of  "  the  feeble 
one"  being  as  David,  and  the  house  of  David  as  God,  etc., 
Kliefoth  explains  by  reference  to  the  expressions  employed  in 
I  Pet.  ii.  9,  "  Ye  are  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal  priesthood,  a 
peculiar  nation"  (comp.  Rev.  v,  10,  and  Matt.  xi.  11).  All 
that  is  denoted  by  such  expressions  in  this  prophecy  is,  in  his 
view,  that  the  kingly  honours  and  the  likeness  to  God  which 
are  granted  to  all  believers  shall  be  at  last  granted  to  con- 
verted Israel.  The  expressions  are  fully  justified  when  used 
with  regard  to  the  conversion  of  Israel.  The  conversion  of 
any  people  is  a  blessing  and  a  gain  for  Christendom  ;  much 
more  will  be  the  conversion  of  Israel. 


2,jS  ZECIIARIAH    AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.        [Ch.  xii.  2-8. 

Such  is  the  exposition  of  the  prophecy  given  by  Kliefoth, 
traced  upon  the  Hnes  drawn  by  Ebrard.  It  is  ingenious,  but 
far  too  artificial.  It  rests  mainly  for  its  support  upon  the 
opposition,  supposed  to  exist  in  the  prophecy,  between  Jeru- 
salem and  its  inhabitants  on  the  one  hand,  and  Judah  on  the 
other  ;  and  upon  Kliefoth's  interpretation  of  chap.  xi.  14,  ff., 
which  we  cannot  regard  as  correct.  The  stress  which  Klie- 
foth lays  upon  the  contrast  throughout  between  Judah  and 
the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  is  the  weak  point  in  his  ex- 
position. No  such  opposition  can  be  proved.  Judah  is  not 
contrasted  with  Jerusalem  as  a  hostile  power,  although  it  is 
mentioned  apart.  In  verse  7  there  is  a  contrast  so  far  drawn 
between  them  that  the  salvation  spoken  of  is  predicted  as 
first  granted  to  Judah  and  then  to  Jerusalem.  In  the  pro- 
phets the  Jewish  kingdom  and  people  arc  often  mentioned  as 
"Judah  and  Jerusalem  "  (Isa.  ii.  i,  iii.  i,  v.  3,  etc.).  Both  are 
named  as  component  parts  of  one  whole,  not  as  parts  radi- 
cally and  distinctly  differing  from  one  another,  as  required  by 
Kliefoth's  exposition. 

Those  scholars  who  ascribe  this  prophecy  to  a  pre-exilian 
author  have  considerable  difficulty  in  assigning  a  date  to  its 
composition.  Maurer  thinks  that  it  was  written  between  the 
time  of  the  death  of  Josiah  (xii.  ii)  and  the  capture  of  Jeru- 
salem by  the  Chaldasans.  Chap.  xii.  to  xiii.  6,  was,  according 
to  him,  probably  written  in  the  fourth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Jehoiakim,  when  the  prophet  expected  that  the  enemy  would 
be  driven  from  the  gates  of  Jerusalem;  the  latter  prophecy, 
xiii.  7 — xiv.  21,  after  the  battle  of  Carchemish,  when  darker 
fears  intruded  themselves  into  his  mind.  Hitzig's  views  are  not 
very  different,  though  it  is  somewhat  difficult  to  comprehend 
his  ideas  respecting  the  details.  Both  scholars  seem  to  regard 
the  prophecies  at  the  close  of  this  book  as  expressing  hopes 
of  fortunate  days,  some  of  which  were  not  fulfilled  at  all,  and 
others  very  inadequately.    No  substantial  reasons  arc  assigned 


Ch.  xii.  2-8]      THE   TRIALS   AND   VICTORY   OF   ISRAEL.  3/9 

for  these  opinions,  and  they  may  be  here  passed  over.  The 
views  of  these  critics  on  the  great  passage,  xii.  lo,  will, 
however,  be  noticed  in  due  course. 

Nor  can  we  regard  the  interpretations  of  those  expositors  as 
correct,  who,  like  v.  Hofmann,  consider  the  events  prophesied 
in  these  latter  chapters  of  Zechariah  to  belong  to  the  last 
stage   of  the   world's   history,  and   to   stand  in   close   con-  ; 
nexion  with  the  second  coming  of  the  Son  of  man.     The  ob-  | 
jections  to  this  mode  of  explaining  chaps,  xiii.  and  xiv.  will  ' 
be  considered  in  our  remarks  on  those  chapters.     It  would    ■ 
be  strange  indeed  for  the  prophecy  to  pass  on  immediately 
from   events    connected    with  the  rejection  of  the    Messiah 
in  chap.  xi.  to  the  time  of  the  end.     It  would    not   indeed    j 
surprise  us  to  find  events  connected  with  the  second  coming    ! 
of  the  Messiah  spoken  of  as  if  connected  in  time  with  the    i 
first  advent,  and  especially  such  as  might  be  viewed  as  the    ; 
results  of   that  advent.       But  it  would  be  strange  to   find 
depicted   on   the   prophetic   page  a   detailed   description   of 
events  immediately  connected  with  the  second  advent,  while 
all  the  great  events  which  were  to  occur  in  the  intervening  j 
time  are  passed  over  in  silence.     A  priori  objections,  however, 
such  as  this  are  not  necessarily  conclusive. 

According  to  v.  Hofmann,  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  spoken 
of  in  chap.  xii.  is  the  same  as  that  more  fully  related  in  chap, 
xiv.  But  in  chap.  xiv.  Jerusalem  is  described  as  actually  cap- 
tured, while  in  chap.  xii.  it  is  described  as  delivered.  The 
tribulation  mentioned  in  the  early  part  of  chap.  xii.  is  fol- 
lowed (not  necessarily  immediately)  by  a  national  conversion  ; 
the  tribulation  of  chap.  xiv.  has  far  different  results.  The 
tribulation  mentioned  in  chap.  xii.  precedes  the  death  of  the 
Messiah,  for  whom  the  great  mourning  is  described  as  taking 
place,  and  whose  mysterious  sufferings,  brought  about  "  by 
the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God  "  (Acts 
ii.  23),  are  spoken  of  as  followed  by  a  terrible  time  of  trial 


38o  ZECIIARIAII    AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.      [Ch.  xii.  2-9. 

experienced  on  the  part  of  those  who  rejected  him  (chap, 
xiii.  y~g).  But  this  latter  tribulation  must  not  be  confounded 
with  that  mentioned  in  the  former  part. 

That  the  early  part  of  the  prophecy  mu.st  be  considered  as 
fulfilled  in  the  days  of  the  Maccabean  revival  has  been  already 
sufficiently  pointed  out.  The  prophecy  seems  to  be  as 
definite  as  is  consistent  with  the  purposes  for  which  prophecy 
was  afforded.  Prophecy  was  never  intended,  as  Chambers 
hns  well  observed,  to  be  simple  history  written  in  advance. 
But  after  speaking  of  the  deliverance  to  be  accorded  in  those 
days  of  distress,  the  prophet  makes  a  rapid  transition  to 
Messianic  days.  This  transition  occurs  at  the  eighth  verse. 
There  the  prophet  announces  that — when  that  deliverance 
should  take  place,  which  would  be  in  such  a  way  that  the 
glory  of  the  capital  would  not  be  superior  to  that  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  towns  and  villages  in  the  land — the  man 
who  was  ready  to  totter  and  fall  should  be  as  David  the  great 
hero  of  old  ;  and  the  house  of  David,  though  it  would  have 
borne  but  a  small  part  in  the  deliverance  of  that  period, 
should  be  as  God,  as  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  who  led  forth  the 
people  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt. 

Too  little  attention  has  generally  been  paid  to  the  expres- 
sion made  use  of  in  verse  9, "  and  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that 
day  that  I  will  seek  to  destroy  all  nations  who  come  against 
Jerusalem."  This  passage  is  not  an  absolute  promise  of  the 
utter  destruction  of  the  nations.  For  the  phrase  which  here 
occurs,  and  which  is  often  used  in  prose  and  poctr\-,  does  not 
necessarily  denote  that  that  which  is  sought  for  is  ultimately 
obtained.  It  is  often  used  of  unsuccessful  seeking,  as  well  as 
of  that  seeking  which  has  a  successful  issue.  ^     It  is  only  used 

'  The  reader  wlio  may  desire  to  collate  passages  in  wliich  llie  same  words  as 
those  in  the  text  occur,  or  in  which  the  same  construction,  the  infinitive  with  ?,  is 
used  after  the  verb  fo  seek  (t'p3),  may  refer  among  other  passages  to  Exod.  ii.  15  ; 
Deut.  xiii.  11  (E.V.  verse  10)  ;  i  Sam.  xi.  2,  20,  xix.  2,  xxiii.  10,  15,  xxiv.  3 
(E.  V.  verse  2) ;  2  Sam.  v.  16,  x.x.  19;  i   Kings  .\i.   22,   40;  Esth.  vi.  2,  vii.  7; 


Ch.  xii.  9.]         THE   TRIALS   AND   VICTORY   OF   ISRAEL.  381 

twice  of  God,  here  and  in  Exod.  iv.  24,  where  it  is  said,  "  God 
sought  to  slay  Moses,"  i.e.,  manifested  clearly  and  distinctly  his 
intention   to  kill  him,  if  Moses   had   persisted   in    neglecting 
the  appointed  rite  of  circumcision.     All,  therefore,  that  this 
passage    in  Zechariah  states  is  that  Jahaveh  would  clearly 
manifest  his  design  to  destroy  all  the  nations  which  should 
come  against  Jerusalem  at  the  era  referred  to.      It  was,  there- 
fore, quite  possible  that  such  a  gracious  design  or  determina- 
tion of  God  on   behalf  of  his  people  might  be  thwarted  by 
their  continuance  in  sin,  or  by  their  ingratitude  for  the   de- 
liverance vouchsafed  to  them.      The  promise  was  thus  similar 
to  that  made   respecting  the  destruction  of  the  Canaanitish 
nations,   which  was  but  imperfectly  accomplished,  owing  to 
the  national  apostasies  of  the  Israelites  (Josh,  xxiii.  5,  with 
verses    12,    13  ;  Jud.  i.  28,  ii.   2,  3,  20-23).      That  which   hin- 
dered   the    Israelites    in    the    days    of    the  Maccabees    from 
obtaining  the  full  victory  over  their  foes,  and  maintaining  the 
independence  which  they  partially  attained  at  the  end  of  that 
glorious  epoch,  was  their  sin  against  Jahaveh,  which  was  the 
cause  of  their  ultimately  losing  what  had  been  obtained  by 
means  of  the  noble  efforts  of  the  Maccabees.     By  the  victories 
then  vouchsafed  to  them,  God  manifested  his  gracious  design 
of  destroying  their  foes.     National  sins  and  general  irreligion 
prevented  the  full  attainment  of  the  blessing.      The  remark- 
able phrase  which  occurs  in  the  ninth  verse  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  used  without  a  distinct  object  and  design.     No  such 
ambiguous  phraseology  is  made  use  of  when  the  final  victory 
over  the  nations  is  predicted  in  the  closing  chapter  of  the  book. 
The  transition  from  an   announcement  of  a  temporal  de- 
liverance of  Israel  to  that  of  the  great  deliverance  which  the 
Messiah  should  effect  (depicted  from  verse   10  to  the  end  of 
the  chapter)  is  in  accordance  with  the  general  usage  of  the 

Ps.  xxxvii.  32,  xl.  15  (E.V.  14).     Compare  the  similar  phrases  in  tlie  New  Testa- 
ment, Matt.  ii.  13 ;  Luke  xiii.  24,  xvii.  "t^t^  ;  John  vii.  25,  viii.  37,  etc. 


382  ZECHARIAH  AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.     [Ch  xii.  10-14. 

prophets.  When  Isaiah  prophesied  the  near  rescue  of  Judah 
from  the  confederacy  formed  against  her  in  his  daj's  by 
Israel  and  Syria,  he  was  led  onward  to  speak  of  Immanuel, 
the  Child  of  the  Virgin  {Isa.  vii.  8,  14-16),  in  such  a  way  as 
if  he  expected  the  birth  of  the  Messiah  to  take  place  in  those 
troublous  times.  When  at  a  later  date  he  was  led  to  predict 
the  destruction  of  the  Assyrian  power,  he  again  gave  utter- 
ance to  a  prediction  of  the  Child  that  was  to  be  born,  of  the 
Son  that  was  to  be  given  to  the  people  of  God  (Isa.  viii. 
and  ix.  1-7).  And  when  in  the  distance  he  heard  the  noise 
of  the  hosts  of  the  Assyrian  army  mustering  for  the  in- 
vasion of  his  country,  he  was  led  first  to  foretell  the  ap- 
proaching fall  of  that  mighty  empire,  which  commenced  with 
the  failure  of  Sennacherib's  attempt  against  Jerusalem,  and 
after  depicting  in  the  most  vivid  manner  the  march  of  the 
Assyrian  army  upon  the  holy  city,  and  the  rebuke  which  it 
should  there  receive  from  the  God  of  Israel,  he  announces  in 
almost  the  same  breath,  that  "a  Rod  should  come  forth  out 
of  the  stem  of  Jesse,  and  a  Branch  should  spring  up  from  its 
roots  "  (Isaiah  x.,  xi.  i),  who  should  introduce  a  grand  period  of 
victory  and  bring  in  the  reign  of  universal  peace.  Thus,  too, 
when  the  return  from  the  captivity  in  Babylon  is  depicted, 
the  hope  of  even  better  things  to  come  is  vividly  set  forth, 
and  in  speaking  of  the  joy  of  the  returning  exiles,  the  prophet 
introduces  the  great  prophecy  of  "the  Servant  of  Jahaveh" 
(Isa.  li. — liii.).  A  large  portion  of  the  Messianic  predictions 
might  be  adduced  in  illustration  of  this  principle,  and  the 
prophecy  before  us  is,  as  we  think,  a  striking  instance  of  the 
same. 

The  special  Messianic  prediction  in  this  prophecy  of  Zech- 
ariah  is  that  contained  in  the  loth  verse,  "And  I  will  pour 
out  upon  the  house  of  David  and  upon  the  inhabitant  of 
Jerusalem  the  spirit  of  grace  and  of  supplication,  and  they 
shall  look  to   me  Avhom  they  have  pierced,   and  they  shall 


Ch.  xii.  lo.]  THE   GREAT   MOURNING.  383 

mourn  for  him,  as  the  lamentation  for  an  only  son,  and  they 
shall  make  a  bitter  mourning  (or  weeping)  for  him,  as  one  is 
bitter  (in  grief)  for  the  firstborn."  The  special  construction 
used  (perfect  with  vav  conv.)  shows  that  a  new  point  is 
touched  upon  by  the  prophet — the  conversion  of  the  people 
is  the  result  of  a  gracious  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 
There  is  an  allusion  no  doubt  to  the  prophecy  of  Joel  (chap, 
iii.  I,  ff.,  in  the  E.  V.  ii.  28,  ff.),  though  similar  predictions  are 
found  elsewhere,  as  in  Ezek.  xxxix.  29  ;  Isa.  xliv.  3,  comp. 
Ezek.  xxxvi.  26,  27.  ^  The  spirit  of  grace  is  that  which  pro- 
duces grace  in  the  heart,  the  result  of  which  is  that  earnest 
supplications  are  made  for  pardon  and  forgiveness.  We 
need  not  translate  the  first  word  by  loiw,  as  Ewald,  nor  render 
it  as  Hitzig  by  emotion,  or,  as  v.  Hofmann,  by  groaning. 
No  examples  can  be  adduced  in  favour  of  any  of  these  trans- 
lations, though  the  word  often  occurs  in  Scripture.  The 
ordinary  translation  "grace'''  or  "favo2ir"  is  correct.-^  The 
outpouring  of  God's  Spirit  alone  renders  a  people  gracious 
or  acceptable  in  God's  sight,  and  that  altered  condition  is  first 
evidenced  by  the  spirit  of  prayer  which  is  evoked. 

Jerusalem  and  its  inhabitants  are  mentioned  alone  in  our 
text,  not  as  though  the  blessing  of  the  gracious  outpouring  of 

^  The  phrase  found  in  Zech.  xii.  10  and  in  Ezek.  xxxix.  29  is  nil  ^ri??^** 
In  Isaiah  the  expression  is  '"PI'I"!  p-VX. 

^  There  is  no  reason  whatever  to  depart  from  the  general  meaning  in  which  jH 
is  used,  i.e.,  favour,  grace.  The  spirit  is  called  the  spirit  of  grace,  because  it 
causes  such  grace,  that  is,  draws  forth  the  Divine  grace  or  favour  (Maurer,  Kohler), 
Compare  the  similar  expressions  in  Isa.  xi.  2,  xxix.  10  ;  Deut.  xxxiv.  9  ;  Eph. 
i.  17.  It  is  not  so  termed  here,  as  Hitzig  thinks,  because  it  is  itself  a  gift  of  grace, 
though  that  is  trae,  because  the  connexion  of  nil  with  D''31Jnn  as  indicating  the 
working  of  that  spirit,  would  be  harsh,  which  fact  caused  Hitzig  to  understand  Jfl 
to  mean  emofwji or  com/iassion  (Hitzig gives  J?u/irung inhis  Comm.  and Erbannimg 
in  his  Transl.  of  the  Prophets).  The  latter  is  the  rendering  of  Gesenius  in  the 
Thes.  In  many  editions  of  his  Lex.  Man.  he  followed  De  Wette  and  Winer  in 
rendering  supplication,  considering  the  word  as  a  synonym  of  the  following  'D. 
MUhlau  and  Voick  adopt  the  ordinary  rendering  of  grace,  as  Kohler.  On  the 
connection  of  m"l  with  the  two  genitives,  Kohler  compares  Isa.  xxxiii.  6,  and  on 
the  paronomasia,  Nah.  ii.  II  ;  Zeph.  i.  15  ;  Ezek.  xxiii.  33. 


3S4  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS    I'ROPHECIES.  [Cli.  xii.  10. 

the  Spirit  was  to  be  confined  to  them,  but  because  Jerusalem 
is  used  as  a  designation  for  the  whole  people,  and  is  pointed 
out  as  the  place  where  the  penitential  sorrow  was  first  to  be 
manifested.  The  mourning  which  was  to  be  caused  in  conse- 
quence of  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of  as  a  mourning 
in  which  the  whole  land  w^as  to  share.  The  house  of  David 
seems  to  be  specified  as  a  designation  of  the  rulers  of  the 
people,  the  house  of  David  being  always  thought  of  by  the 
prophets  as  the  lawful  rulers  of  the  nation. 

There  has  been  no  little  dispute  about  the  words,  "they 
shall  look  unto  me  whom  they  have  pierced."  The  subject 
of  the  first  verb  is  admitted  by  all  commentators  to  be  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  and  the  house  of  David.  The 
attempts  to  make  out  that  the  subject  of  the  second  verb  in 
the  sentence  is  "  the  heathen,"  spoken  of  in  the  early  part  of 
the  prophecy  as  attacking'  Jerusalem,  must  be  characterised 
as  failures.  Ewald  maintains  that  the  mourning  pictured  by 
the  prophet  is  a  mourning  over  the  Jews  fallen  in  the 
defence  of  their  city  as  martyrs  for  their  country  and  faith  ; 
those  slain  in  the  battle-field  he  considers  to  be  those 
pierced  by  the  heathen.  Ewald's  reputation  as  a  critic  renders 
it  necessary  to  consider  any  suggestions  put  forth  on  his 
authority,  but  the  exposition  does  great  violence  to  the  lan- 
guage of  the  passage.  His  interpretation  agrees  substantially 
with  that  of  the  Jewish  commentators. 

The  difficulty  of  the  passage  lies  in  the  expression,  "  they 
shall  look  unto  me  whom  they  have  pierced."  This  reading 
is  certainly  correct.  It  has  the  support  of  all  of  the  ancient 
versions,  and  of  the  great  majority  of  the  MSS.,  embracing 
all  the  better  ones.  It  is  easy  to  understand  how  the  reading 
"  they  shall  look  unto  him,"  arose  as  a  correction  of  the  former 
reading.  Some  of  the  MSS.  have  the  reading  "unto  him" 
as  a  marginal  reading  Clp),  and,  as  frequently  happens  in 
the  case  of  such  readings,  that  in   the   margin  has,   in   many 


Ch.  xil.  lo.]  THE  GREAT   MOURNING.  385 

MSS.,  crept  into  the  text.  The  assertion  of  Martini,  made 
with  the  bitterness  of  the  professed  controversialist,  is  unfair  ; 
namely,  that  this  alteration  occurred  "  through  the  perfidy  of 
some  modern  Jews."  The  difficulty  the  Jews  found  in  the 
original  reading  was  quite  natural,  and  need  not  be  ascribed 
to  any  attempt  to  deprave  the  testimony  given  by  the  text 
to  the  divinity  of  the  Messiah.  The  same  difficulty  was 
felt  by  Ewald,  who  has  thus  expressed  his  views  :  "  The 
first  person  here  is  indeed  entirely  unsuitable ;  it  is  at 
variance  with  the  connexion  with  the  following  'and  they 
shall  mourn  for  him,'  and  introduces  the  absurdity  into 
the  Old  Testament,  that  one  would  weep  bitterly  for  Jahve 
(Jahaveh) — for  to  Jahve  alone  can  one  refer  the  statement — 
as  over  one  dead,  as  over  a  dead  person  who  could  never 
return  again.  The  idea  is  rather  that  one  martyr  would 
not  fall  in  vain,  but  would  one  day  be  lamented  by  univer- 
sal love  ;  which  language  then  can  be  transferred  to  a  much 
higher  martyr,  John  xix.  37  ;  Apoc.  i.  7." 

This  difficulty  is  not  really  solved  by  an  assertion  of  the   ip*^} 
twofold  nature  in  Christ,  or,  in  other  words,  by  any  attempt 
to  use  the  passage  as  a  direct  proof  of  our  Lord's  divinity. 
The  question  is,_what  sense  could  have  been  put  upon  the^'^^ 
passage  by  those  persons  who  were  primarily  addressed  by  "y^^  n 
the  prophet  ^     That  the  passage  may  have  a  deeper  significa-  ^rr<>*.*^ 
tion  than  they  put  upon  it  is  true,  but  the  passage  must  have  fi_^ 
been  understood  in  some  way  or  other  by  those  to  whom  the  ^T;:.  ait 
words  were   originally  addressed.      No   previous  mention  is  ^^•*-<**' 
made  in  it  of  the  double  nature  of  the  Messiah,  and  such  a^--/^rt 
thought  would  not  have  suggested  itself  to  the  pious  Jew  oi'h^-Ao^ 
the  days  of  Zechariah.     He  could  not  possibly  have  explained  V. 
the  passage  of  putting  Jahaveh  to  death,  as  he  was  taught  by'.,-; 
all  the  prophets  the  spiritual  character  of  the  God  whom  he     ' 
worshipped. 

Nor   can    we    think  that    the  Angel    of  Jahaveh  is    here 

C  C 


386  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xii.  lo. 

spoken  of,  as  Hcngstcnberg,  Kliefoth,  Wunsche,  and  others 
have  supposed.  The  mention  of  the  piercing  of  the  Angel 
of  Jahaveh  would  have  been  almost  as  great  a  difficulty  to 
the  prophet's  hearers,  as  to  speak  of  the  death  of  Jahaveh 
himself.  "  The  passage  is  most  easily  explained,"  as  Hitzig 
has  remarked,  from  "  the  identification  of  the  Sender  with  the 
sent,  of  Jahaveh  with  the  prophet."  This  is  the  view  sub- 
stantially held  by  E.  Meier,  Kohler,  Kahnis,  and  Umbreit.  The 
passage  refers  to  the  previous  allegory  of  the  good  shepherd, 
identified  in  the  former  chapter  with  Jahaveh  as  his  messenger 
and  representative,  and  similarly  here  identified  with  his  Lord. 
As  St.  John  did  not  hesitate,  when  he  quoted  the  passage 
*in  reference  to  our  Lord's  crucifixion,  to  change  the  first 
"person  into  the  third  (John  xix.  37),  so  the  Jewish  expositors, 
with  equal  good  faith,  have  appended  their  marginal  note. 
In  adopting  this  interpretation,  we  do  not  in  the  slightest 
degree  deny  that,  in  the  highest  and  deepest  sense,  this 
passage,  as  well  as  that  in  chap,  xi.,  may  find  its  full  signifi- 
;  cance  in  the  mysterious  union  of  the  human  and  the 
1  Divine  in  the  person  of  Christ.  That  doctrine  cannot,  how- 
ever, be  proved  from  such  texts,  and  no  such  idea  could 
possibly  have  arisen  in  the  minds  of  the  Jews  who  first 
listened  to  its  solemn  words.  The  progressive  character  of 
Divine  revelation  on  such  mysterious  points  is  too  often 
lightly  passed  over  by  the  dogmatist. 

The  prediction  when  delivered  must  have  been  considered 
to  refer  to  a  national  mourning  over  some  one  who  stood  in 
an  intimate  connexion  with  Jahaveh,  and  whose  rejection  and 
death  was  to  be  bitterly  bewailed  by  the  people  of  Israel. 
Such  would  have  been  the  meaning  conveyed  by  the  passage 
to  the  Jews  of  the  time  of  Zechariah.  Assuming  that  the 
prophecy  proceeded  from  the  same  author  as  that  of  the 
previous  chapter, — and  there  are  no  sufficient  grounds  on  which 
to  deny  it, — the  rejection  of  the  representative  of  Jahaveh, 


Ch.  xii.  10.]  THE  GREAT   MOURNING.  387 

(namely,  the  good  shepherd,  whose  rejection  is  there  spoken  of 
as  followed  by  a  terrible  punishment),  and  the  national  mourn- 
ing described  as  taking  place  for  one  who  should  be,  in  some 
mysterious  manner,  "  pierced "  by  the  nation  when  acting 
in  the  capacity  of  the  representative  of  Jahaveh,  must 
both  have  been  considered  by  the  hearers  of  the  prophet  to 
refer  to  one  and  the  same  event. 

The  explanation  of  Ewald  would  never  have  suggested 
itself  to  the  minds  of  the  Jews  of  that  day.  That  scholar 
admits  that  the  passage  refers  to  some  highly  esteemed  and 
well-loved  person.  He  is  even  disposed  to  consider  that  some 
remarkable  martyr  to  truth  and  religion  is  referred  to,  whose 
death  had  not  met  with  due  recognition.  He  appears, 
indeed,  to  have  nearly  planted  his  feet  within  the  threshold 
of  the  temple  of  truth,  when  he  says  that  one  might  be 
tempted  almost  to  think  of  the  great  martyr  of  Isa.  liii.,  if  it 
were  not  that  it  is  impossible  for  one  to  be  referred  to,  who  is 
not  elsewhere  mentioned  in  the  prophecy.  Ewald's  difficulty 
is  entirely  caused  by  his  arbitrary  severance  of  this  prophecy 
from  that  which  precedes  it.  When  once  it  is  perceived  that 
the  two  prophecies  traverse  in  many  points  over  the  same 
ground,  the  difficulty  disappears.  The  good  shepherd  of  chap, 
xi.,  so  shamefully  treated  for  his  tender  care,  is  to  be  identi- 
fied with  the  great  martyr  portrayed  in  the  pages  of  Isaiah  as 
"the  Servant  of  Jahaveh,"  and  both  must  be  identified  with 
the  Pierced  one  of  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Zechariah. 

We  agree  with  Keil  in  considering  that  the  rejection  and 
consequent  crucifixion  of  our  Lord  is  the  event  which  the 
prophecy  has  in  view.  The  quotation  of  the  passage  by  St. 
John  (xix.  T)]),  in  the  form  "  they  shall  look  on  him  whom 
they  pierced,"  and  his  special  application  of  it  to  the  incident 
of  the  soldier  piercing  the  side  of  the  Redeemer  after  he 
was  already  dead,  is  not  to  be  understood  as  if  that  fact, 
and  that  only,  was  predicted  by  the  seer.     The  incident  itself 


388  ZECIIARIAH   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xii.  10. 

was  rather  an  illustration  and  example  of  what  is  here  re- 
ferred to,  than  the  point  specially  had  in  view  in  the  prophecy. 
The  piercing  of  Christ's  side  with  the  lance  was  regarded  by 
St.  John  as  the  final  act  of  indignity  done  to  our  Lord,  as  in 
fact  the  summing  up  of  the  rejection  and  death  here  darkly 
predicted.     No  stress  must  be  laid  upon  the  mention  made 
of  the  pici'cing  ^.s  \\\\.\\  a  spear  ;  for  Zcchariah,  in  chap.  xiii.  7, 
uses  language,  which,  if  its  literal  signification  be  insisted  on, 
would  imply  death  by  the  sword.      The  remarks  made  on 
chap.  ix.  9  are  fully  applicable  in  the  interpretation  of  this 
passage.     The  prophecy  would  lose  much  of  its  importance, 
as   Hengstenberg  has  observed,  if  it  were  supposed  to  refer 
^.  ft^M.onXy  to  a  single  fact  in  the  history  of  our  Lord's  humiliation, 
torf**<^«'namely,  to  the  act  performed  by  the  Gentile  soldier.      It  is 
lf^y,^,„uA.  rather  to  be  regarded  as  a  general  prediction  of  the  death  of 
iJ:i^l  our  Lord,  which  was  brought  about  by  the  Jewish  people.    The 
I-  hi'j:-   literalists  widely  err  when  they  lay  stress  upon  such  assumed 
^''C*.*'  literal  fulfilments.      They  might   be  hard   pressed,   if  stress 
were  laid  on  the    other    side  on  those  various  points  which 
were  not  fulfilled  in  the  letter,  though  accomplished  accord- 
,  ,       ing  to  the  spirit. 

The  national  mourning  spoken  of  in  the  chapter  was 
primarily  fulfilled  when  the  people,  who  beheld  the  death 
of  Jesus  on  the  cross  and  the  signs  that  followed,  smote 
their  breasts  in  grief,^  and  returned  mourning  to  Jerusalem 
(Luke  xxiii.  48).  The  crowds,  who  but  a  short  time  before 
had  cried  out  "  crucify  him,"  then  smote  their  breasts,  over- 
powered by  the  proofs  of  the  superhuman  dignity  of  Jesus, 
and  mourned  for  the  Dead  and  for  their  own  sin  (Hengsten- 
berg). The  contrition  expressed  by  thousands  of  penitent 
Jews  on  the  occasion  of  Peter's  sermon  on  the  Day  of  Pcnte- 

'  Hengstenberg  notes  that  mention  is  made  in  Isa.  xxxii.  12,  of  lamenting  by 
smiting  the  breast  in  language  similar  to  that  of  Zcchariah,  and  we  may  also  re- 
call to  mind  the  lamentation  of  the  women  recorded  in  Luke  xxiii.  27,  ff. 


Ch.  xii.  10.]  THE   GREAT   MOURNING.  389 

cost  was  another  fulfilment  of  the  text.  Thousands  of  Jews 
were  then  pricked  (pierced)  in  their  heart  (KaTevvyrjcrav  rrj 
KapSia).  These  were  fulfilments  of  the  prophecy,  as  were  the 
further  results  of  apostolic  preaching  recorded  in  Acts  iii. — v., 
etc.  And,  as  Keil  justly  notes,  the  prophecy  has  been  ac- 
complished again  and  again  in  the  Christian  Church  when 
conversions  have  taken  place  from  Judaism,  and  will  have  its 
final  accomplishment  in  the  day  in  which  the  remnant  of 
Israel  shall  return  to  the  Lord  their  God. 

Wiinsche  '  has  pointed  out  that  the  teaching  of  the  Syna- 
gogue with  respect  to  the  two  Messiahs,  Messiah  ben  Joseph 
and  Messiah  ben  David,  was  originally  derived  from  this 
passage.  The  Messiah  ben  Joseph,  or  Messiah  ben  Ephraim, 
was  considered  to  be  one  destined  to  be  born  in  poverty,  and 
acquainted  with  ills,  who  was  to  lose  his  life  fighting  for  his 
people  in  the  great  contest  against  Gog  and  Magog.  The 
Messiah  ben  David,  on  the  other  hand,  was  regarded  as  the 
great  Messiah  who  was  to  be  the  final  conqueror,  and  to  erect 
a  kingdom  over  which  he  was  to  reign  for  ever.  The  doctrine 
of  the  two  natures  in  the  Messiah  was  unknown  to  the  Syna- 
gogue, or,  if  known,  set  aside  as  ifnpossible.  That  doctrine! 
could  alone  reconcile  in  all  their  fulness  the  teachings  of  thei 
double  set  of  prophecies,  which  speak,  on  the  one  hand,  of  a  \ 
glorious,  and,  on  the  other,  of  a  suffering  Messiah.  The 
doctrine  of  the  two  Messiahs  seems  to  have  sprung  up  after 
the  Christian  era,  in  order  to  explain  in  some  way  the  pro- 
phecies adduced  by  Christians  in  proof  of  the  Messiahship 
of  our  Lord.  Wiinsche  cites  two  passages  which  exhibit  the 
connexion  of  this  opinion  with  this  passage  in  Zechariah. 
The  Jerusalem  Gemara  (composed  between  A.D.  230  and  290) 
notes,  in  reference  to  this  very  text,  that  there  were  among 

\ 

^  rT'tJ'Dn  '•'l-ID.'',  oder  Die  Leiden  des  Messias   in  ihrer  Uebereinstimmting  mil  der  1 
Lehre  des  Alien  Testaments  undden  Ansprikhen  der  Rabbinen,  etc.     Dargestellt  von 
Dr.  Aug.  Wiinsche.     Leipz.  1870. 


390  ZECIIARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  xii.  lo. 

the  Rabbis  two  opinions,  "one  says  that  which  they  (the 
people)  mourn  is  the  Messiah  ;  and  the  other,  that  which 
they  mourn  is  evil  desire  (original  sin)."  In  the  Babylonian 
Gemara  (composed  later,  between  A.D.  365  and  the  close  of 
the  fifth  century)  a  fuller  statement  occurs  in  reply  to  the 
question  :  "  What  is  the  cause  of  this  mourning .''  In  this 
R.  Dosa  and  the  other  Rabbis  differ.  The  one  said  it  wa?. 
for  Messiah  ben  Joseph,  who  is  to  be  slain  ;  and  the  other  said 
it  was  for  evil  desire  (original  sin),  which  is  to  be  slain.  Let 
there  be  peace  to  whoever  says  that  it  is  for  Messiah  ben 
Joseph,  who  is  to  be  slain,  verily,  for  it  is  written  'and  they 
shall  look  to  him  whom  they  have  pierced.'"  {Tractat  Succa, 
fol.  52,  col.  I,  quoted  in  Wiinsche,  p.  64.)  Rabbi  Salomo  ben 
Yi.^.hak  (Rashi)  states  in  his  commentary,  that  "the  Rabbis 
explained  this  passage  with  reference  to  Messiah  beri  Joseph, 
whom  they  shall  slay."  ^  David  Kimchi  explains  the  words 
"  whom  they  have  pierced,"  by  "  because  they  have  pierced." 
He  objects  to  the  Messianic  interpretation,  because  the  Messiah 
must  be  supposed  to  be  "spoken  of  unconnectedly,  without 
any  previous  mention  at  all."  The  interpretation  he  gives  is 
not  unlike  that  which  has  been  defended  by  Ewald,  namely, 
that  in  the  war  with  their  enemies  the  people  of  the  Jews 
will  be  astonished  if  even  so  much  as  one  man  should  fall 
among  their  ranks,  and  will  look  upon  such  a  calamity  as 
the  beginning  of  a  defeat,  as  when  the  men  of  Ai  smote  only 
thirty-six  men  of  Israel.  Hence  they  should  look  up  to  God 
for  help,  even  in  the  smallest  reverses.  Such  a  view  scarcely 
needs  to  be  controverted,  so  opposed  is  it  to  the  whole  tenor 
of  the  passage.  Nor  will  the  Hebrew  bear  such  a  rendering 
(see  crit.  comm.)." 

'  He  states  that  this  was  his  own  view  in  the  words  quoted  by  Wiinsche 
n^K'D  ■|'?0  "pi;  n'pX  nniD'?  TJ'DS*  '•S*.  "  The  place  cannot  be  explained  otherwise 
than  as  referring  to  Kinc;  Messiah."  Wiinsche,  p.  53.  McCaul  says  that  Rashi  ex- 
plained it  otherwise  in  his  commentary  on  the  Bible  (Trafisl.  of  Kinuhi,  p.  161). 

'   Bohl,  in  his  Alt-tcstatncntlklien  Citate  im  Neuen  Testament,  p.  Ill,  notes  that 


Ch.  xii.  lo,  II.]  THE   GREAT   MOURNING.  39I 

Wiinsche  has  proved,  by  a  considerable  induction  of  pas- 
sages from  the  non-controversial  writings  of  the  Jews,  that  the 
Synagogue  in  ancient  times  had  a  distinct  idea  of  a  suffering 
and  an  atoning  Messiah.  The  belief  that  Messiah's  sufferings  j 
were  to  be  voluntary,  and  that  his  death  in  some  way  or  other! 
was  to  be  an  atonement  for  sin,  pervades  the  early  Jewish  writ- 1 
ings.  It  is  natural  enough  that  the  modern  Synagogue  should 
have  changed  its  views  on  these  points,  but  it  is  not  fair  that 
attempts  should  be  made  to  silence  or  misrepresent  on  such 
points  the  testimony  of  the  older  Jewish  authorities.  It  is 
natural  that  Drummond  in  his  recent  work  on  TJie  JezvisJi 
Messiah  (p.  359)  should,  from  his  theological  standpoint, 
exhibit  a  desire  to  defend  the  thesis  he  so  confidently  puts 
forward,  namely,  that  "although  the  Jews  were  not  without 
the  general  notion  that  the  afflictions  of  the  pious  atoned  for  the 
sins  of  the  community,  they  had  no  expectation  of  a  suffering 
and  atoning  Messiah."  That  opinion  is,  however,  at  variance 
with  the  passages  cited  in  his  own  work,  as  well  as  with  the 
more  numerous  passages  adduced  by  Wiinsche. 

The  prophet  in  verse  1 1  compares  the  penitential  mourning 
which  was  to  take  place  in  Jerusalem,  with  the  mourning  of 
Hadad-rimmon  in  the  valley  of  Megiddo.  It  has  been  a 
question  of  much  dispute  what  was  the  special  mourning 
referred  to.  The  translation  of  the  LXX.,  "  as  the  mourning 
of  a  pomegranate- orchard  cut  down  in  a  plain,"  has  arisen  from 
a  blunder.     The  Targumist  supposes  that  two  mournings  are 

the  Targum  Jerushalmi,  of  which  Lagarde  has  given  some  fragments  in  his  edition 
of  the  Reuchlin  Codex  of  the  Prophets,  sees  here  a  piercing  of  the  Messiah.  It 
gives  the  following  interesting  paraphrase  of  Zech.  xii.  10.  "  I  will  cause  to  dwell 
upon  the  house  of  David,  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  the  spirit  of  prophecy 
and  of  true  prayer,  and  consequently  Messiah  the  son  of  Ephraim  will  go  forth 
to  make  war  with  Gog ;  and  Gog  will  slay  him  before  the  gate  of  Jerusalem  ;  and 
they  will  look  unto  me  and  pray  to  me,  because  the  Gentiles  have  pierced  the 
Messiah,  the  son  of  .Ephraim,  and  will  mourn  over  him,  as  a  father  and  mother 
mourn  over  an  only  son,  and  will  be  grieved  for  him,  as  they  are  grieved  over  a 
firstborn. " 


392  ZECIIARIAH   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  xii.  ii. 

referred  to  ;  the  one  the  lamentation  for  Ahab,  who  was 
slain  in  battle  at  Jezreel,  as  they  say,  "  by  Hadad-rimmon 
the  son  of  Tab-rimmon,"  identifying  Hadad-rimmon  with 
Benhadad;^  and  the  other,  the  great  mourning  for  Josiah, 
who  was  slain  in  battle  fighting  against  Pharaoh  Necho  in 
the  valley  of  Megiddo.  Hitzig  formerly  suggested  that  the 
reference  might  be  to  some  mourning  for  Ahaziah,  king  of 
Judah,  who  was  wounded  by  Jehu  when  the  latter  rebelled 
against  Joram,  and  who  fled  to  Megiddo  (2  Kings  ix.  27), 
and  died  there.  This  suggestion  has  been  long  since  with- 
drawn by  its  author  ;  but  it  still  deserves  mention  as  an 
llustration  of  what  fanciful  interpretations  are  sometimes 
resorted  to,  when  the  simple  sense  of  the  passage  is  passed 
over.  The  opinion  defended  by  him  in  his  commentary, 
which  has  been  adopted  by  some  other  scholars,  is  that 
there  is  a  reference  in  the  mourning  of  Hadad-rimmon  to  the 
mourning  for  Adonis,  whose  orgies  seem  to  have  had  their 
origin  in  Phoenicia.  This  interpretation  has  been  finally 
disposed  of  in  the  masterly  article  of  Prof.  Count  von 
Baudissin.-     Hitzig's  idea  was  too  far-fetched  to   obtain  the 

'  LXX.  (is  KOTrerbs  potSvos  iv  ireoiw  iKKOTrToixivov,  omitting  1'^T\,  and  regarding 
njD  as  a  part.  pass,  of  the  Aram.  113  to  cut  dtnvn  (v.  Baudissin),  or,  as  Schleus- 
ner  suggested,  reading  1^1???.  The  Syr.  simply  translates  :  "Like  to  the  mourn- 
ing of  the  son  of  Amon  [Josiah]  in  the  valley  of  Megiddo."  The  Targ.  is  : 
"  In  that  day  shall  the  mourning  in  Jerusalem  be  gieater  than  the  mourning 
for  Ahab  the  son  of  Omri,  whom  Hadadrimmon  the  son  of  Tabrimmon  killed, 
and  than  the  mourning  for  Josiah  the  son  of  Amon,  whom  Pharaoh  the  lame  killed 
in  the  valley  of  Megiddo."  The  Targ.  evidently  connected  the  appellation  1D3. 
or  TO"^  (Necho)  with  nD3,  as  in  D^^JT  HD?,  lame  in  the  feet,  2  Sam.  iv.  4.  Com- 
pare I  Kings  XV.  18,  where  Tab-rimmon  is  given  as  the  name  of  a  Syrian  king  ; 
also  Sayce's  rendering  of  the  name  of  Benhadad  in  the  Assyrian  inscription  as 
Rimmon-hidri  (or  Benhadad),  the  name  reversed.  Grotius  long  ago  thought  this 
view  probable. 

-  Ilitzig  has  maintained  that  Hadad  was  the  name  of  the  Sun  god  of  the  Syrians 
and  Rimmon  that  of  a  Syrian  god  united  here  with  the  former,  the  two  names 
standing  in  apposition.  The  compound  he  regards  as  a  Syrian  epithet  of  Adonis, 
who  was  slain  by  a  boar,  and  part  of  whose  cultus  consisted  in  a  lamentation  at  a 
certain  season.  He  considers  the  lamentation  for  Tammuz  mentioned  by  Ezek. 
viii.(i4),  to  be  a  trace  of  the  Adonis-worship.     Thus  here,  he  thinks  the  lanicuta- 


Ch.  xii.  II.]  THE  GREAT   MOURNING.  393 

approval  of  Ewald  and  his  school.  Pressel  considers  that 
the  mourning  to  which  reference  is  made  was  the  wailing  of 
the  mother  of  Sisera  over  her  son,  the  great  chieftain  of  the 
Canaanites,  who  was  slain  by  Jael  after  his  defeat  by  Barak 
not  far  from  Megiddo  (Judg.  v.  19).  The  recollection  of  this 
mourning  was,  Pressel  thinks,  kept  alive  among  the  people  of 
Israel  by  the  song  of  Deborah.  The  notion  is  novel  and 
ingenious,  but  lacks  all  probability.^ 

It  is  now  generally  admitted  that  the  mourning  was  that 
over  the  pious  king  Josiah.  It  is  impossible  to  imagine 
that  the  prophet  would  compare  the  great  penitential  mourn- 
ing over  Israel's  ill-treatment  of  the  representative  of 
Jahaveh  to  the  mourning  over  an  idolatrous  king,  or  to  the 
wailing  of  idolaters    in  their    rites,    or   to  the   lament   of   a 

tion  predicted  is  compared  to  the  lamentation  over  Adonis.  The  conjecture  is  in 
some  respects  ingenious.  It  has  not,  however,  been  adopted  by  Ewald  or  von 
Ortenberg,  though  approved  of  by  Movers,  Merx,  and  Wellhausen  {Gotting. gelekrt. 
Anzeigen,  1877),  and  regarded  vi'ith  favour  by  other  scholars.  The  opinion  may 
be  considered  as  finally  disproved  by  v.  Baudissin,  who  thinks  that  Schrader  was 
correct  in  explaining  fUST  as  identical  with  \ipV^,  thunder cr,  the  1?  being  dropped 
as  in  ^3  for  ?1^5,  and  the  JD  doubled  as  a  compensation.  But  Friedr.  Delitzsch 
{Chalddische  Genesis,  p.  269)  has  since  shown  that  the  appellation  Ramami  or 
Iiamtnamim.es.n5  ^^  exalted,"  and  Schrader  himself  has  lately  adopted  that  view. 
The  correct  mode  of  writing  the  compound  is  pi-obably  piDTITH,  Hadar-Ram- 
mon  or  jOTITH,  Hadar-Ramman.  In  many  cases  the  utmost  confusion  prevails 
in  MSS.  and  Versions  in  names  in  which  T  and  1  occur.  The  first  part  of  the 
compound  is  that  which  stands  second  in  the  name  Ben-hadar  (as  Benhadad 
should  be  written),  after  the  Assyrian  inscription  of  Salmanassar  II.,  where  Bin- 
idri  or  Bin-hidri  occurs  (Schrader,  Keilinsclwiften,  p.  loi).  Sayce  prefers  to  read 
the  ideogramm  Rimmon-'hidri  {Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  iii.  p.  99,  vol.  v.  p.  34). 
The  sense  of  the  compound  Hadar-Rammon  seems  to  be  Glorious  is  the  Ex- 
alted one.  The  name  was  never  given  to  Adonis.  It  is  used  as  the  name  of  a 
place,  so  termed  from  the  God  worshipped  there,  possibly  before  the  land  came  into 
the  possession  of  the  Israelites,  or  so  called  after  the  overthrow  of  the  kingdom  of 
Israel,  by  some  Syrian  or  Assyrian  colonists  who  settled  in  the  locality.  See  von 
Baudissin,  Studien  zur  Scniitischen  Religionsgeschichte,  Heft.  i.  Leipzig,  1876. 

^  The  idea  of  Lightfoot  is  a  very  strange  one.  He  mentions  in  his  Chr.  Temp. 
V.  &^  N.  T.,  p.  47,  in  the  folio  edition  of  his  works,  that  two  mournings  are  here 
referred  to ;  the  first  that  around  the  Rock  of  Rimmon  (Judg.  xx.  45),  on  account 
of  the  reduction  of  the  numbers  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  and  the  second  that  for 
Josiah.  But  there  is  not  the  slightest  ground  given  in  the  text  in  support  of  the 
former  idea. 


394  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiL  ii. 

heathen  mother  over  a  son,  who  was  a  bitter  and  ruthless 
enemy  of  the  people  of  God.  The  mourning  for  Josiah,  re- 
ferred to  in  2  Chronicles  (xxxv.  25),  was  of  a  very  different 
character,  and  was  in  reality  a  national  mourning.  In  that 
national  lamentation  Jeremiah  took  part,  and  for  it  he  com- 
posed special  dirges,  which  are  unfortunately  lost.  The  battle 
in  which  Josiah  fell  was  a  battle  fought  "  in  the  valley  of 
Megiddo  "  (2  Chron.  xxxv.  22),  the  identical  words  used  in  the 
end  of  the  clause,  "  as  the  mourning  of  Hadad-rimmon  in  the 
valley  of  Megiddo."  Josiah  was  not  only  lamented  by  the 
nation  when  he  died,  but  for  many  years  after  that  fatal  battle 
the  custom  of  lamenting  this  pious  king  was  kept  as  an 
ordinance  in  Israel  (2  Chron.  xxxv.  25).  There  is  probably 
a  reference  to  this  national  mourning  in  Jer.  xxii.  10.  Hadad- 
rimmon,  or  Hadar-Ramman,  which  appears  to  be  the  correct 
form  of  the  name  (v.  Baudissin)  must  be  the  name  of  some 
place  not  far  from  Megiddo.  Jerome  in  his  note  on  this  pas- 
sage observes  that  "Adadrimmon  is  a  city  near  Jezrccl,  which 
was  formerly  called  by  this  name,  and  now  is  called  Maximian- 
opolis,  in  the  place  of  Mageddon,  in  which  the  pious  king 
Josias  was  wounded  by  Pharaoh  surnamcd  Necho."  Baudissin 
notes  that  it  is  highly  improbable  that  Jerome  should,  as  Hitzig 
imagines,  have  taken  the  name  Hadad-Rimmon  for  Maximian- 
opolis  from  this  passage  in  Zechariah.  The  situation  of  the 
towns  Megiddo  and  Maximianopolis  seems  now  fairly  ascer- 
tained. The  former  was  probably  on  the  site  of  the  later 
Legio,  the  modern  LedsJnin,  and  traces  of  the  latter  arc  said  to 
be  found  in  the  modern  village  Rummanch,  little  more  than 
a  couple  of  miles  south  of  the  other,  in  which  name  the  old 
Hadar-Ramman  may  be  preserved,  though  that  is  doubtful.i 

'  Lieut.  Conder  has  informed  me  that  Maximianopolis  is  placed  by  the  Bordeaux 
Pilgrim  ten  Roman  miles  from  Jezreel  in  the  direction  of  Ca-sarea,  and  was  iden- 
tified by  Vandevclde  with  Rummaneh.  Sec  Condcr's  Tent  ]Vork  in  Palestine, 
vol.  i.  p.  129. 


Ch.  xii.  II.]  THE   GREAT   MOURNING.  395 

A  slight  difficulty  arises  with  respect  to  the  notices  of  the 
death  of  Josiah  in  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles.  In 
the  fuller  account  given  in  the  latter  book  Josiah  is  said 
to  have  been  brought  wounded  from  Megiddo  to  Jerusalem, 
where  he  died  (2  Chron.  xxxv.  22-24.)  How  then  could  the 
mourning  over  him  have  taken  place  at  Hadad-rimmon  .-'  In 
the  shorter  account  in  the  book  of  Kings  it  is  mentioned  that 
the  king  was  carried  dead  to  Jerusalem.  It  is,  however,  quite 
possible  to  render  the  word  translated  "  dead "  (-HI?)  by 
"dying"  (compare  Gen.  xxxv.  18),  as  Ewald,  Bertheau,  and 
v.  Baudissin  have  suggested,  although  Thenius  {Coimn.  iiber  die 
Koiiige)  is  opposed  to  that  translation.  The  mourning  may 
be  considered  as  having  commenced  at  Hadad-rimmon,  where 
the  king  received  his  deadly  wound,  even  though  the  great 
national  mourning  took  place  at  Jerusalem,  whither  his 
body  was  brought  from  the  fatal  field.  Moreover  (as  Bau- 
dissin observes),  "  the  mourning  of  Hadad-rimmon  "  may  be 
explained  as  "  the  mourning  over  Hadad-rimmon,"  i.e.,  over 
the  national  calamity  which  took  place  there.  ^ 

^  It  has  been  questioned  whether  the  fatal  battle  in  which  Josiah  lost  his  life 
actually  took  place  at  Megiddo.  Josephus  states  that  it  occurred  at  the  city  of 
Mende  (/cara  M.ivhr\v  -wSkw,  Antiq.  x.  5,  §  i).  This  Baudissin  seems  to  regard  as 
an  error  of  writing  (p3D  for  11130).  Herodotus  (Book  ii.  159)  speaks  of  the 
battle  as  having  taken  place  at  Magdolus,  which  would  most  naturally  be  taken  to 
signify  the  city  Migdol  (?i"13P)  on  the  confines  of  Egypt,  well  known  to  the 
classical  writers,  and  not  far  from  Pelusium  (Jer.  xliv.  I,  xlvi.  14 ;  Ezek.  xxix.  10, 
XXX.  6,  compare  Exod.  xiv.  2  ;  Num.  xxxiii.  7).  This  would  have  been  a  most 
natural  place  for  the  battle  to  have  occurred.  Herodotus,  however,  was  much 
more  likely  to  make  a  mistake  in  such  a  matter  than  the  writers  of  the  books 
of  the  Kings  and  Chronicles,  and  both  place  the  scene  of  the  battle  at  Megiddo. 
Ewald  (Gesch.  Israels,  vol.  iii.  3  Aufl.  p.  762)  conjectured  that  el-Medshdel 
(?i^^l!lO)  is  meant  by  Herodotus,  which  is  south  of  Akko  on  the  Nahr-d-AIdik 
(the  king's  river),  which  designation  he  suspects  was  given  to  it  after  the  fatal 
battle.  As  far  as  locality  is  concerned,  this  conjecture  is  not  at  all  improbable, 
the  place  being  not  far  from  the  valley  of  Megiddo.  The  objection  to  it,  as  noticed 
by  Baudissin,  is  that  there  is  no  trace  of  the  spot  in  ancient  authorities.  Pharaoh 
Necho  according  to  Herodotus  was  wont  to  make  much  use  of  his  fleet  for  the 
purpose  of  transporting  the  army  in  drder  to  save  time  and  lengthened  marches 
by  land,  and  Thenius  and  v.  Baudissin  think  it  most  probable  that  he  did  soon  this 


39^  ZECHARIAH  AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.   [Ch.  xii.  11-14. 

The  objection  brought  forward  by  Hitzig,  that  the  solemn 
mourning  for  Josiah  took  place,  not  on  the  battle-field  where 
that  Jewish  monarch  fell  mortally  wounded,  but  at  Jerusalem, 
is  of  no  weight.  For  the  death  of  Josiah  was  the  event  which 
led  to  the  utter  discomfiture  of  the  Jewish  army,  and  the 
signal  victory  of  Pharaoh  Necho.  The  loss  of  the  king 
must  have  been  bitterly  bewailed  by  his  soldiers  on  the 
field  of  battle,  as  well  as  afterwards  lamented  by  the  nation 
at  large,  when  the  dead  body  of  their  monarch  was  brought  to 
Jerusalem.  The  mourning  in  Jerusalem  was  but  the  con- 
tinuation of  that  began  on  the  fatal  field  of  Megiddo. 

The  sorrow  of  the  children  of  Israel  which  is  described  as 
taking  place  in  the  day  of  their  national  repentance,  is  then 
most  suitably  compared  to  the  greatest  national  sorrow  that 
ever  befell  that  nation,  when  its  most  pious  and  beloved  mon- 
arch was  slain  by  the  Egyptian  archers  on  the  bloody  field  of 
Megiddo. 

But  the  penitential  sorrow  of  Israel  for  the  great  martyr 
was  to  be  grief  not  only  affecting  the  nation  as  a  whole,  but 
all  the  families  of  the  nation  in  their  individual  character. 
The  prophet  therefore  compares  it  not  only  to  the  national 
mourning  which  took  place  for  Josiah,  but  also  to  the  sorrow 
experienced  when  a  firstborn  and  only  son,  the  single  hope 
of  his  parents,  is  borne  to  the  silent  grave. 

The  mourning  was  one  in  which  the  whole  land  should 
take  a  part.  It  is  strikingly  pictured  as  one  which  should 
not  only  be  manifested  in  public,  but  be  participated  in 
by  each  family  apart.     Families  are  spoken  of  as  mourning 

occasion.  In  this  case  he  would  have  landed  his  troops  north  of  the  territory  of 
Judah,  and  his  shortest  course  in  marching  against  the  king  of  Assyria  from  the 
sea  coast  of  Palestine  would  have  been  thi'ough  the  valley  of  Megiddo.  Hence  it 
would  be  quite  natural  for  Josiah,  who  seems  to  have  possessed  some  authority 
over  at  least  a  portion  of  the  ancient  territory  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  (i  Kings 
xiii.  2  ;  2  Kings  xxiii.  19  ;  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  6),  to  march  across  his  own  frontiers  in 
order  to  attack  the  Egyptian  army  on  its  flank. 


Ch.xii.  11-14-]  THE   GREAT   MOURNING,  39/ 

apart  from  families,  individuals  as  compelled,  by  the  deep 
sorrow  which  should  overwhelm  them,  to  weep  apart  by 
themselves.  The  lamentation  was  to  be  greater  than  any 
former  lamentation.  Husbands  would  mourn  apart  from 
their  wives,  and  wives  apart  from  their  husbands.  The 
sorrow,  though  national,  was  also  to  have  all  the  charac- 
teristics of  individual  sorrow.  It  was  to  be  national  and 
private  at  the  same  time  ;  it  was  not  to  be  a  mere  ceremonial 
lamentation,  but  a  genuine  sorrow  of  heart.  Each  individual 
was  to  experience  the  grief  so  keenly  as  to  desire  to  hide 
himself  from  the  eyes  of  others.  The  nation  in  general,  and 
each  member  of  it  in  particular,  was  to  experience  the  full 
bitterness  of  penitential  grief 

The  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost 
caused  the  first  outburst  of  such  a  sorrow.  Many  Jews  were  b. 
then  partakers  of  that  deep  penitential  grief,  both  in  public 
and  in  private.  The  sin  of  having  slain  the  Lord's  Christ 
broke  their  hearts,  although  through  Divine  grace  they  were 
enabled  to  look  by  faith  unto  him  whom  they  had  pierced, 
as  their  fathers  had  looked  unto  the  serpent  of  brass  in  the 
wilderness  (Num.  xxi.  9),  and  thus  to  mourn  for  him  with  a 
godly  sorrow  that  worked  repentance  unto  life  (2  Cor.  vii.  10). 
The  tears  of  penitential  sorrow  for  the  sin  which  caused  the 
death  of  the  Redeemer  have  never  from  that  day  onward 
ceased  to  flow.  Thousands  and  thousands  of  Jews  wept  for 
their  sins  then,  and  beheld  by  faith  the  Lamb  of  God  who 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world  (John  i.  29).  The  great 
national  mourning  of  that  nation  in  its  fullest  sense  will  take 
place  when  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  shall  have  come  in, 
and  the  children  of  Israel  shall  return  to  the  Lord  their  God. 
In  that  penitential  sorrow  the  Gentiles  have  had  their 
share.  Made  children  of  Abraham  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus, 
they,  too,  have  in  the  long  vista  of  ages  been  led  in  thousands 
and  tens  of  thousands,  nationally  and  individually,  to  mourn 


39S  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.    [Ch.  xii.  12-14. 

for  sin,  and  to  look  to  the  Redeemer,  in  the  sin  of  whose 
crucifixion  they,  too,  have  had  their  share.  As  Pressel  has 
beautifully  remarked  in  his  meditations  on  the  chapter,  in  a 
countless  number  of  silent  chambers,  the  sighs  and  prayers  of 
individuals  have  ascended  to  heaven.  Men  and  women  of  all 
stations  and  positions,  of  all  families  of  the  earth,  have  joined 
in  this  lamentation,  princes  and  beggars,  learned  and  un- 
learned, teachers  and  hearers.  And  "  when  he  comes  in  the 
clouds  of  heaven,  this  lamentation  will  arise  to  heaven  at  once 
in  all  languages  and  tongues,  until  it  is  silenced  before  his 
throne  of  grace,  and  changed  into  that  song  of  praise, 
'  Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain  to  receive  power,  and 
riches,  and  w^isdom,  and  strength,  and  honour,  and  glory,  and 
blessing,'  Rev.  v.  12."    (Pressel.) 

The  families  of  the  greater  portion  of  the  inhabitants  of 
the  land  are  summed  up  in  the  expression,  "  all  the  families 
which  are  left,  family  by  family,  apart,  with  their  wives  apart." 
Four  families  are,  however,  mentioned  by  name,  two  of  them 
well  known,  though  with  respect  to  the  other  two  there  is 
much  difference  of  opinion.  The  two  well-known  families 
are  those  of  the  house  of  David  and  of  the  house  of  Levi.i 
The  others  are  the  family  of  the  house  of  Nathan,  and 
"  the  family  of  the  Shimeite,"  or  "  the  family  of  the  house  of 
Shimei "  Of  the  four,  two,  as  we  shall  see,  belonged  to  the 
royal  house,  and  two  were  priestly  families. 

The  explanation  given  by  Jerome,  namely,  that  the  family 
of  David  represents  the  royal  tribe  or  Judah  in  general ;  that 
of  Nathan,  the  prophetic  order ;  that  of  Levi,  the  priests  ; 
and  that  of  Shimei,  the  teachers,  "  for  the  different  orders 
of  magistrates  sprang  from  this  tribe  ;"  points'  to  the  Jewish 
tradition  respecting  the  tribe  of  Simeon  alluded   to  in  the 

'  Ilitzig  observes  that  it  is  strange  that  Levi  appears  only  as  a  family,  but  he 
notes  also  that  the  word  is  used  in  a  more  extended  signification,  and  is  employed 
as  a  synonym  of  D2\y  (a  tribe^  in  Judg.  xviii.  19,  as  also  in  Josh.  vii.  17. 


Ch.  xii.  12-14.]  THE   GREAT   MOURNING.  399 

Targum  Jerushalmi  on  Gen.  xlix.  7.  That  tradition  is,  how- 
ever, devoid  of  any  historical  basis,  though  it  is  mentioned 
by  Tertulhan  {cont.  JiidcEos,  10,  and  cont.  Marcion,  iii.  13). 
Nathan,  is  probably  not  to  be  regarded  as  the  distin- 
guished prophet  of  that  name,  who  flourished  in  the  time 
of  David,  but  rather  as  the  name  of  one  of  David's  sons^ 
(2  Sam.  V.  14),  who  was  an  ancestor  of  our  Lord  (Luke  iii.  31). 
The  patronymic  used  by  Zechariah,  viz.,  "  the  Shimeite," 
cannot,  as  Hengstenberg  and  others  have  noted,  mean 
the  members  of  the  tribe  of  Simeon,  for  which  ''the  Simeon- 
ite"  (Num.  xxv.  14)  would  have  been  used.  ^  The  latter 
objection  is  fatal  to  this  view,  independently  of  others 
which  might  be  urged.  The  family  of  Shimei  probably 
means  the  descendants  of  Shimei,  the  grandson  of  Levi, 
mentioned  in  Exod.  vi.  17  ;  Num.  iii.  17,  18,  21  (Hengsten- 
berg, Kohler,  v.  Ortenberg,  Kliefoth),  which  family  is  named 
as  one  of  the  subordinate  branches  of  the  sacerdotal  line. 
The  house  of  Nathan  seems  also  to  represent  a  subordi- 
nate branch  of  the  royal  house  (2  Sam.  v.  14;  Luke  iii.  41), 
mentioned  along  with  that  branch  from  which  the  kings 
of  Judah  were  descended.  The  special  mention  of  these  two 
minor  subdivisions  of  the  house  of  David  and  of  the  house  of 
Levi  respectively  may  be  supposed  (as  Hengstenberg  has 
suggested)  to  indicate  that  the  mourning  spoken  of  was  to 
pervade  every  family,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  of 
which  predicted  fact,  these  two  subordinate  "  houses "  are 
only  given  as  examples.  The  prophet  names  specially  the 
royal  and  priestly  families  in  order  to  intimate  that  in  the 

^  In  connexion  with  the  opinion  that  Nathan  was  the  son  of  David,  it  is  ' ' 
worthy  of  note  that  Dehtzsch  has  shown  that  the  Synagogue  have  partly  traced!, 
the  genealogy  of  the  Messiah  to  that  branch  of  David's  family.  See  Delitzsch'sjj, 
Talmudische  Studienin  the  Liith.  Zeitschrift,  i860,  p.  640,  ff.  '•' 

^  The  patronymic  from  flUptJ'  [Simeon)  is  ''Jy?pE^'^  Num.  xxv.  14  ;  Josh.  xxi.  4  ; 
while  that  from  ''V'OP  (S/iivia')  is  '•rp^H,  Num.  ii.  21,  as  in  this  passage  of 
Zechariah,  That  •'l)?DErn  nnD£i>0  is  equivalent  to  "'rOEJ'n-n''a  ^'D  is  plain  from 
the  similar  constructions  in  Num.  xxvi.  5,  6. 


400  ZECIIARIAII   AND   IIIS   rROniECIES.    [Ch.  xii.  12,  13. 

crime  of  the  nation,  in  the  murder  of  the  great  martyr,  to 
which  reference  is  made,  those  families  should  bear  a  part, 
and  that  they,  therefore,  should  have  a  special  share  in  the 
great  penitential  mourning. 

Neumann  thinks  that  the   Shimei  whose  family  is   here 
spoken  of  was  Shimei  the  son  of  Gera,  the  Benjamite,  who 
cursed  David  with  a  heavy  curse  in  the  day  that  David  fled 
from    Jerusalem    before   Absalom   his   rebellious    son.      At 
that   time   Shimei   charged    David   before   the   people  with 
being  "  a  man  of  blood,"  whose  sins  were  justly  visited  upon 
his  own  head   (2  Sam.  xix.  16,  ff.).      Hitzig   has  adopted   a 
somewhat  similar   view,   for   he   considers    the  Shimcites  to 
represent  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  and  the  house  of  David  to 
represent  the  tribe  of  Judah.     But  this  is  improbable.     Neu- 
mann supposes  that  the  family  of  Shimei  is  mentioned  as 
an  example  of  God's  pardoning  grace,  because  Shimei,  by 
cursing   the    Lord's   Anointed,  had  exposed  himself  to  the 
just  sentence  of  death.     The    Shimeites,  according   to   this 
view,  represent  the  lost  and  abandoned  sinners  who  by  the 
power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  will  at  last  be  found  among  such 
as  mourn  pcnitcntially  for  the  pierced  Redeemer.     But  this 
explanation  docs  not  suit  the  context,  and  the  word  can  only 
be  used  as  a  simple  patronymic.     Lange  has  adopted  the 
same  view,  and  thinks  that  the  prophet  in  speaking  of  "  the 
Shimeites,"  and  not  of  "the  family  of  Shimei,"  has  designedly 
withheld  from  them  the  more  honourable  title  and  appellation. 
This  appears  more  than  fanciful,  and  the  criticism  is  doubt- 
ful (see  note  2,  p.  399).     Kimchi  considers  that  the  families 
specified  by  name  are   mentioned  prophetically  as  families 
which  would   become  great  and  well  known  at  the  time  when 
the  prophecy  would  be  fulfilled.     This  may  also  be  dismissed 
from  serious  consideration.     It  may  commend  itself  to  some 
who   yearn  after  so-called  "literal    interpretations,"   though 
they  seldom  reflect,  that  to  render  such  fulfilments  possible,  it 


Ch.  xli.  13.]  THE   GREAT   MOURNING.  4OI 

would  be  necessary  that  Divine  revelations  should  be  given 
of  long  and  involved  genealogies. 

Dathe  and  Hezel  think  that  there  is  a  reference  in  all  the 
names  to  the  family  of  the  Messiah.  They  observe  that  the 
four  names  occur  in  the  genealogy  of  our  Lord  in  Luke  iii., 
namely,  Simei  in  verse  26,  Levi  in  verse  29,  Nathan  and  David 
in  verse  31.  But,  as  Kohler  observes,  the  Simei  of  Luke  iii.  26 
could  not  have  been  alive  in  the  days  of  Zechariah.  Hence 
the  similarity  of  names  proves  nothing. 

Lord  A.  Hervey,  the  present  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  in 
his  work  on  the  Genealogies  of  our  Lord,  though  he  considers 
the  Levites  to  be  referred  to  by  "  the  family  of  Levi,"  yet 
maintains  that  both  Shimei  and  Nathan  are  to  be  regarded 
as  descendants  of  David.      He  thinks  that  Shimei  was  the 
brother   of  Zerubbabel    (i    Chron.    iii.    19),   who    bore   such 
an  important   part  in   the  restoration    from    the    exile.     Li 
I  Chron.  iii.,  however,  no  mention  is  made  of  any  family  of 
Shimei,    the    brother   of  Zerubbabel.     That   text,    however^ 
seems   to  be  peculiarly   corrupt ;    for  though   seven  sons   of 
Zerubbabel   are  actually   enumerated   in   verses    19,  20,  the 
number  of  Zerubbabel's  sons  is  stated  in  the  close  of  verse  20 
to  be  but  five.     The  mention  made  of  Hattush  in  verse  22  as 
the  fifth  or  sixth  in  descent  from  Zerubbabel  (or  according  to 
the  LXX.  the  ninth  or  tenth)  presents  a  serious  difhculty ; 
for  Hattush  is  mentioned  in  Ezra  viii.  2  as  a  member  of  the 
house  of  David  who  returned  from  Babylon  with  Ezra.     But 
it  is  quite  impossible  in  that  case  that  so  many  generations  as 
are  stated  even  in  the   Hebrew  text  could  have  intervened 
between  Hattush  and  Zerubbabel.     It  is  probable,  therefore, 
that  the  persons  whose  names  are  given  in  verse  21  have  no 
connexion  at  all  with  the  genealogy  of  Zerubbabel.     Bishop 
Hervey  thinks  it  possible  that  those  names  have  been  inserted 
in  some  way  in  their  wrong  place,     "  The  sons  of  Shemaiah  " 
in  verse  21  he  regardsas  a  simple   repetition  from  the  end  of 

D  D 


402  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  xii.  13. 

verse  20.  He  would  further  erase  the  words  at  the  beginning 
of  verse  22,  "  and  the  sons  of  Shechaniah,  Shemaiah,"  which 
clause  seems  to  be  partly  an  accidental  repetition  of  the 
words  at  the  end  of  verse  21.  Verse  22  would  then  com- 
mence with  the  clause  "the  sons  of  Shemaiah,  Hattush,  etc.," 
Shemaiah  being  in  that  case  considered  as  identical  with 
Shimci  (the  names  being  really  the  same  in  the  Hebrew)  ; 
and  Shimei  would  then  naturally  be  identified  with  the 
Shimei  who  in  verse  19  is  mentioned  as  the  brother  of  Ze- 
rubbabel. 

In  order  to  avoid  the  difficulty  arising  from  the  fact  that 
the  family  of  Shimei  is  mentioned  in  Zechariah  after  the 
family  of  Levi,  and  apart  from  the  family  of  David,  the 
Bishop  supposes  that  Shimei,  the  brother  of  Zcrubbabel,  may 
have  remained  in  Babylon,  though  Hattush  his  son  returned 
to  the  land  of  Judaea.  The  Bishop  evidently  feels  that  this 
difficulty  is  almost  fatal  to  his  entire  theory,  though  he  is  un- 
willing wholly  to  abandon  it.  The  explanation  is  ingenious, 
but  it  rests  too  much  upon  mere  hypothesis  to  be  regarded 
as  probable.  The  separation  of  the  names  of  Nathan  and 
Shimei  from  one  another  in  this  verse  was  not  thought  by 
Rabbi  Salomo  ben  Yizhak  to  be  fatal  to  a  similar  theory 
propounded  by  that  commentator,  who  maintains  that  the 
Shimei  of  Zcch.  xii.  13  was  identical  Avith  Shammuah  the 
son  of  David.  He  says,  "  Sacred  Scripture  first  speaks  in 
general  of  the  family  of  the  house  of  David,  and  afterwards 
specially  enumerates  each  (family)."  The  authority  of  Gciger 
may  also  be  adduced  in  support  of  the  opinion  that  "  the 
family  of  Shimei  "  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  family  of  Shimei 
the  brother  of  Zerubbabel  {Urschrift,  p.  59,  footnote).  But  it 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  Geigcr  identifies  Nathan  in  this 
place  with  the  priest  Jonathan,  the  father  of  Jaddua  (Nch. 
xii.  11)  and  of  Manasseh  the  Samaritan  high  priest.  This, 
of. course,  would  be  impossible,  unless  the  composition  of  the 


Ch.  xii.  12-14.]  THE   GREAT   MOURNING.  403 

prophecy  were  to  be  assigned  to  the  times  of  the  Maccabees, 
and  there  is  little  to  support  that  view. 

As  the  house  of  Levi  was  mentioned  by  the  prophet  among 
those  who  should  "  mourn  apart "  the  sin  of  rejecting  the 
Messiah,  it  is  interesting  to  call  to  mind  the  fact  that  a  great 
number  of  the  priests  are  expressly  mentioned  among  those 
who  mourned  for  the  Redeemer  in  early  days  (Acts  vi.  7). 
Members  of  the  house  of  David  also  joined  in  that  penitential 
mourning,  which  was  awakened  by  the  descent  of  the  Spirit 
on  the  Day  of  Pentecost.  If  our  Lord's  brethren  did  not 
believe  in  him  during  the  days  of  his  humiliation,  they  were 
foremost  among  the  disciples  that  afterwards  worked  in  his 
cause,  Cleopas,  who  mourned  with  a  fellow  disciple  the 
decease  of  the  Lord  during  that  remarkable  Sabbath  day's 
journey  to  Emmaus  (Luke  xxiv.  18-21),  was  probably  him- 
self a  member  of  the  house  of  David.  Women,  too,  joined  in 
large  numbers  the  great  company  of  penitents.  They  had 
wept  for  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  he  was  borne  along  to  his 
terrible  death  (Luke  xxiii.  27) ;  they  wept  bitterly  at  his  cross 
(John  xix.  25)  and  at  his  tomb  (Mark  xvi.  47 ;  John  xx.  1 1). 
But  their  sorrow  was  turned  into  blessed  joy,  and  not  a  few 
of  them  rejoiced  after  their  short  days  of  sorrow,  having  re- 
ceived the  end  of  their  faith,  even  the  salvation  of  their  souls 
(i  Pet.  i.  9). 

There  are  those  who  consider  that  the  prophecy  of  this 
chapter  is  to  be  regarded  as  one  of  those  predictions  which 
are  as  yet  unfulfilled.  They  refuse  to  admit  that  the  mourn- 
ing predicted  is  that  great  mourning  for  sin  which  has 
been  exhibited  by  thousands  and  thousands  of  penitent  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  and  which,  beginning  at  Jerusalem  on  the  Day 
of  Pentecost,  was  afterwards  more  or  less  shared  by  all 
parts  of  the  land  of  Palestine.  A  literal  fulfilment  of  this 
prophecy  in  the  future  would,  as  has  been  already  ob- 
served, require  as  its  preliminary  a  special  revelation  with 


404  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.    [Ch.  xii.  12-14. 

respect  to  the  genealogies  of  the  Jews,  which  have  been  long 
since  lost  beyond  hope  of  recovery.  To  dream  that  such  a 
revelation  will  be  vouchsafed  for  the  purpose  of  making 
known  the  families  to  which  the  Jews  severally  belong,  and 
with  the  view  of  specially  distinguishing  the  descendants  of 
David  and  Nathan  and  Levi  and  Shimei,  is  an  idea  too 
monstrous  to  be  entertained  by  the  sober  expositor.  Few 
realize  to  themselves  what  would  be  required  in  order  to 
obtain  a  literal  accomplishment  of  the  prophecy.  Even  the 
great  Messianic  prophecies  were  not  fulfilled  in  such  a 
"literal"  manner  as  some  look  for  these  supposed  prophecies 
of  the  future  to  be  accomplished.  Nothing  less  than  a 
miracle  would  be  required  in  order  to  trace  the  families  of 
David  and  of  Levi  in  all  their  various  ramifications.  The 
age  of  genealogies  is  gone  for  ever.  The  royal  line  of  David 
has  probably  been  extinct  for  ages.  The  last  certain  trace 
discovered  of  that  family  in  ecclesiastical  history  is  most  in- 
teresting, but  the  story  tends  to  show  at  the  same  time  that 
the  family  of  David  was  almost  extinct.^  Its  course  was  run 
when  the  promised  Son  of  David  was  caught  up  to  God  and 
his  throne  (Rev.  xii.  5).  The  heads  of  the  Babylonian  Jews 
who  still  remained  in  exile,  and  who  afterwards  established 
schools  of  learning  in  Babylon, — the  race  of  chieftains  who 
kept  up  a  shadowy  court,  and  were  known  in  early  times  by 
the  old  title  of  "  the  Princes  of  the  Captivity," — may  possibly 
have  had  some  sli";ht  ricjht  to  be  regarded  as  members  of 


'  We  refer  to  the  well-known  incident  narrated  by  Neander  in  his  Church 
History  (vol.  i.  p.  131,  English  translation  published  by  T.  &  T.  Clark  of  Edin- 
burgh), and  by  Robertson  {^History  of  the  Christian  Church,  vol.  i.  p.  6)  on  the 
authority  of  liegesippus  ap.  Euscb.  iii.  19,  20.  The  emperor  Domilian  having  been 
informed  that  some  descendants  of  the  house  of  David  were  living  in  Judiva 
ordered  them  to  be  brought  before  him,  fearing  that  they  might  be  disposed  to 
rebel  against  the  Romans.  They  were  the  grandchildren  of  St.  Jude,  the  "brother" 
of  our  Lord.  They  showed  the  emperor  their  hands,  homy  with  manual  labour, 
and  having  thus  convinced  him  that  they  were  poor  innocent  countrymen,  they  were 
I)ermitted  to  depart  in  peace  to  their  homes. 


Ch.xii.  12-14.]  THE   GREAT   MOURNING.  405 

David's  line.  But  even  that  shadowy  title  and  claim  has 
long  since  passed  away.  Its  very  memory  has  well  nigh 
perished. 

The  literal  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  took  place  when 
thousands,  awakened  to  a  sense  of  the  sin  they  had  com- 
mitted in  crucifying  the  Lord  of  life  and  glory,  bitterly 
bewailed  their  transgression.  The  penitential  sorrow  of 
those  days  was  not  confined  to  Jerusalem,  but  pervaded  the 
whole  land  of  Judaea.  Many  thousands  of  the  Jews  believed 
(Acts  xxi.  20),  a  fact  too  much  lost  sight  of  in  the  contem- 
plation of  the  rejection  of  the  Gospel  by  the  majority  of  the 
Jewish  people.  If  the  Pentecostal  outpouring  of  the  Spirit 
was  an  event  of  such  importance  as  to  be  predicted  by  Joel, 
the  mourning  on  account  of  our  Lord's  crucifixion  was  equally 
worthy  to  be  noted  by  Zechariah.  Both  fulfilments  were  no 
doubt  in  some  respects  only  inchoate ;  both  prophecies  will 
yet  have  a  grander,  but  not  a  more  literal  fulfilment.  The 
fact  is,  that  as  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  has  not  been  with- 
held since  its  primal  outpouring,  so  neither  has  the  mourn- 
ing even  of  the  Jewish  people  for  their  sin  come  to  an  end. 
There  never  has  been  a  period  in  the  history  of  the  Church 
when  some  believing  Jew  has  not  mourned  because  of  the 
sin  of  his  people,  nor  a  time  when  such  a  penitential  mourner 
has  not  found  comfort  in  Christ.  Prophecy  is  wont  to  view 
the  commencement  and  the  end  as  closely  connected,  and 
both  are  often  embraced  in  one  grand  picture.  Were  it  not 
for  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  his  distinct  pro- 
phecy respecting  Israel's  final  recovery,  it  might  be  argued 
that  there  was  no  reason  to  look  for  anything  further  as 
regards  Israel.  The  prophecy,  however,  of  verse  9,  when 
expounded  in  the  light  of  the  prediction  of  the  eleventh 
chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  leads  us  to  expect  a 
still  further  and  more  glorious  day  of  blessing,  when,  in  the 
language  of  Hosea,  "the  children  of  Israel  shall  return  and 


406  ZECHARIAII   AND    IIIS    PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  xii.  14. 

seek  Jahavch  their  God  and  David  their  king,  and  shall  fear 
Jahaveh  and  his  goodness  in  the  latter  days "  (Hos.  iii.  5). 
"And  so,"  in  St.  Paul's  emphatic  language,  "all  Israel  shall 
be  saved  :  as  it  is  written.  There  shall  come  out  of  Zion  the 
Deliverer,  and  shall  turn  away  ungodliness  from  Jacob " 
(Rom.  xi.  26). 


CHAPTER     XII. 


THE  REACTION  AGAINST  FALSE  PROPHETS,  AND  ITS 
CONNEXION  WITH  THE   GREAT  TRANSGRESSION, 


CHAPTER    XII. 


The  connexion  with  the  previous  chapter,  the  open  fountain,  409 — The  cleansing 
water,  410 — Different  views  of  the  open  fountain,  411 — Objections  to  Pressel's 
view,  412 — The  expression  "in  that  day,"  412 — The  allusion  to  the  past  na- 
tional sins,  413,  415 — Danger  of  idolatry  not  past  in  Zechariah's  time,  413 — 
False  prophets  and  superstitions  in  post-exilian  days,  414,  416 — No  reference 
to  a  future  apostasy,  415 — The  change  of  feeling  in  the  Jewish  nation  as  to 
prophets,  417 — Instances  given  by  Zechariah  to  show  this,  417 — The  son  slain 
by  his  parents,  418 — Flaming  zeal,  419 — Cessation  of  real  prophecy,  419 — 
Reason  why  that  gift  was  taken  away,  420 — Reaction  against  sin  leading  to 
transgression,  421 — False  prophets  in  secret,  421 — The  haiiy  ganiient,  422 
— Jewish  asceticism,  423 — Zechariah's  second  instance,  424 — The  defence  of 
the  false  prophet,  424 — The  reference  to  Amos,  424 — Meaning  of  the  false 
prophet's  defence,  425,  429 — Difference  of  translation  of  fifth  verse,  425 — Reply 
of  the  accuser,  426 — The  wounds  of  the  false  prophet,  426 — Explanation  of 
Kimchi,  427 — Fresh  wounds,  428 — Idolatrous  woundings,  428,  430 — Hengsten- 
berg's  view  of  the  passage,  429 — No  reference  to  the  wounds  of  our  Lord,  430 
— Pusey's  statement  of  that  view,  431 — Feeling  of  Jews  against  all  claims  to 
inspiration  in  our  Lord's  day,  432 — The  fifth  and  sixth  verses  a  suitable  trans- 
sition  to  the  seventh,  432 — Proposed  transfer  of  that  verse  to  chap.  xi.  433 — 
The  seventh  verse  commencing  a  new  section,  433 — The  sword  of  Jahavch,  434 
437 — Titles  of  honour  given  to  the  Stricken  One,  434 — My  shepherd,  435 — My 
fellow,  435— Usage  of  latter  term,  435 — Its  significance,  436 — ^Jewish  hatred 
against  idolatry,  437 — The  terrible  sin,  437 — Kliefoth's  view  of  passage,  438, 
note — The  crucifixion  of  our  Lord,  438 — The  turning  back  of  the  hand  of 
Jahaveh,  439 — The  humble  ones,  440 — The  shepherd  smitten  because  of  the  sin 
of  the  flock,  441 — The  third  part,  441 — Fulfilment  of  prophecy,  442 — Refer- 
ences in  the  New  Testament  to  this  prediction,  442 — The  sheep  scattered,  443 
— The  necessity  of  our  Lord's  death,  444 — The  scattering  of  Israel,  445. 


CHAPTER    XII. 

THE    REACTION   AGAINST    FALSE    PROPHETS,   AND    ITS    CON- 
NEXION  WITH   THE   GREAT   TRANSGRESSION. 

The  thirteenth  chapter,  so  far  at  least  as  its  earlier  verses 
are  concerned,  is  evidently  a  continuation  of  the  great  pro- 
phecy begun  in  the  twelfth.  That  chapter  closed  with  a 
description  of  the  great  mourning  in  the  land  of  Israel  on 
account  of  the  crime  of  which  the  people  of  the  covenant 
had  been  guilty  in  piercing  him  who  was  the  representative 
of  Jahaveh.  The  chapter  now  before  us  describes  the  gra- 
cious answer  given  by  Jahaveh  in  reply  to  the  earnest  and 
contrite  prayer  of  his  people.  The  first  proof  of  Jahaveh's 
gracious  return  to  his  people  would  be  seen  in  his  pouring 
out  upon  them  the  spirit  of  grace  and  supplication  ;  and, 
inasmuch  as  prayer  aroused  by  the  Spirit  of  God  cannot 
long  remain  unanswered  (Rom.  viii.  26,  27),  the  spirit  of 
supplication  would  be  succeeded  by  the  gift  of  pardon  and 
acceptance. 

In  the  day  when  the  nation  of  Israel  should  by  Divine 
grace  be  led  to  see  the  nature  and  enormity  of  their  trans- 
gression, "  in  that  day,"  says  the  prophet,  "  a  fountain  will  be 
opened  for  the  house  of  David  and  for  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem  for  sin  and  for  uncleanness."  ^     By  "the  house  of 

^  The  LXX.  evidently  read  DfpD  for  TipD  rendering  iras  towos,  thereby 
confusing  the  meaning  of  the  passage.  The  last  words  of  the  verse  they  trans- 
late eis  T7}v  fieTaKivrjaiv  (al.  exx.  fieTOLKTjaiv)  Kal  et's  rbv  xwpt(TjOt(5j'  fal.  exx.  pavTi(7/i6v). 
Possibly,  as  Schleusner  suggests,  the  former  rendering  was  derived  from  the 
original  meaning  of  the  verb  NtOH,  or  they  regarded  the  word  as  indicating  the 
punishment  inflicted  for  sin,  which  was  deportation  into  exile.     The  latter  opinion 


410  ZECHARIAII   AND    IIIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiii.  i. 

David  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,"  the  members  of  the 
covenant  i:)cople  in  general  are  to  be  understood.  For  the 
mourning  of  the  land  (xii.  12)  is  identified  with  the  mourning 
to  take  place  in  Jerusalem  (xii.  1 1),  which  is  more  fully  termed 
the  mourning  of  "  the  house  of  David  and  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem"  (xii.  10).  The  national  sin  is  represented  under 
the  metaphor  of  uncleanness  of  a  special  kind  (n"7^).  Com- 
pare Ezek.  xxxvi.  17,  and,  though  the  word  used  there  is 
different,  Isa.  Ixiv.  6.  The  Jewish  nation  is  represented  as 
defiled  with  sin  and  uncleanness,  just,  as  in  the  picture  given 
in  the  earlier  visions  of  the  prophet,  Joshua  the  high  priest 
was  exhibited  as  clothed  with  filthy  garments  (chap.  iii.  3,  4). 
The  water  whereby  that  filth  is  cleansed  away  corresponds 
to  the  gracious  command  of  the  Angel  of  Jahavch  in  the 
earlier  chapter,  whereby  the  filthy  garments  were  removed 
from  the  high  priest  of  Israel. 

The  illustration  of  water  as  cleansing  and  purifying  from 
sin  is  found  also  in  the  prophet  Ezekicl  (chap,  xxxvi.  25  ; 
compare  also  Ps.  li.  9).  The  words  of  the  original  show  that 
reference  is  here  made  to  the  water  so  constantly  used  by  the 
priests  and  Levites  for  purification  (Num.  viii.  7),  which  was 
termed  sin-zvater  (/^^iI2^^  VO),  or  water  whereby  purification 
from  sin  was  obtained.  There  may  also  be  a  reference  to 
that  water  with  which  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer  were  to  be 
mixed,  which  was  to  be  used  as  "  water  of  uncleanness " 
(n"71  ■'Q'?),  or  as  "a  sin-offering"  (i^lH  JlJ^'^n,  Num.  xix. 
9,  ff.).     In  Ezekicl  the  water  is  spoken  of  as  sprinkled  upon 


is  favoured  by  tlie  reading  /j.eToiKT](rtv.  Their  translation  of  mj  has  been  derived 
from  the  original  signification  of  the  root.  The  Arabic  translator,  possibly 
unable  to  attach  any  meaning  to  the  passage  as  it  appeared  in  the  LXX. 
has  omitted  all  the  words  following  TIT  H^Q?  (^o  the  house  of  Davici).  Acpiila 
renders  Kal  els  rqv  fieraKlvrjaiv  Kal  etj  tov  ^avTifffiSv.  Either  the  word  fieradvrjffn 
has  been  imported  from  the  LXX.,  as  Montfaucon  thinks,  or  the  words,  as 
Field  is  inclined  to  believe,  ought  to  be  transposed,  in  which  case  neTaKLvrjjn 
is  Aquila's  translation  of  HIJ. 


Ch.  xiii.  I.]     THE   REACTION   AGAINST   FALSE   PROPHETS.      4I  I 

the  individuals  who  are  to  be  the  subjects  of  grace.  The 
figure  here  is  much  stronger  ;  a  fountain  of  living  water  is 
opened  in  which  the  guilty  can  wash  and  be  clean. 

In  the  "  fountain  opened  "  some  have  supposed  that  Zech- 
ariah  refers  to  waters  which  are  closed  up,  being  designed  only 
for  the  use  of  those  persons  to  whom  they  belong.  Thus  the 
loved  one  in  the  Canticles  (iv.  12)  is  compared  to  a  spring 
thus  secured,  a  fountain  sealed,  indicating  that  her  loveliness 
was  to  be  reserved  for  her  beloved  alone.  Schultens,  how- 
ever, is  more  correct  in  regarding  the  idea  of  the  passage  to 
be  that  the  fountain  is  closed  as  long  as  it  is  hidden  in  the 
rock,  but  opened  when  it  breaks  forth.  The  same  idea  is 
presented  in  Isa.  xli.  18,  "I  will  open  (nnSJhi)  rivers  in  high 
places  and  fountains  in  the  midst  of  the  valleys,"  and  in 
Isa.  XXXV.  6,  "  in  the  wilderness  shall  waters  break  out, 
and  streams  in  the  desert." 

The  Targum  thinks  that  a  reference  is  made  to  the  Law — 
"  the  doctrine  of  the  Law  will  be  revealed  as  a  fountain  of 
waters."  It  sees  in  the  passage  an  allusion  also  to  the  puri- 
ficatory water  spoken  of  in  Num.  xix.,  for  it  adds  :  "  And  I 
will  forgive  their  offences,  as  they  are  cleansed  with  the 
waters  of  sprinkling  and  the  ashes  of  the  heifer  which  is  the 
sin-offering."  The  fountain  for  sin  is,  however,  to  be  under- 
stood generally  of  the  pardoning  grace  of  Jahaveh  (Kohler). 
That  grace  was  manifested  in  former  times  to  Israel  by  the 
sacrifices  ordained  of  God,  and  a  greater  display  of  grace  was 
to  take  place  in  Messianic  days.  The  great  manifestation 
of  God's  love  in  the  days  of  the  New  Dispensation  was  no 
doubt  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  the  Cross  of  Calvary,  where- 
by sin  was  removed  and  transgression  forgiven.  But  the 
text  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  a  direct  prediction  of  the 
effects  of  the  death  of  Christ  and  of  the  pardon  obtained 
thereby,  as  Hengstenberg  and  others  seem  to  think.  The 
believer  in  the  New  Testament  will,  however,  consider  that 


412  ZECHARIAH   AND    IIIS    PROniECIES.  [Ch.  xiii.  i. 

fact  as  the  true  realization  of  the  grace  spoken  of  in  this  pas- 
sage in  more  general  terms  (John  i.  29 ;   i  John  i.  y)} 

Pressel,  who  ascribes  the  prophecy  contained  in  these  chap- 
ters to  a  pre-exilian  date,  thinks  that  distinct  allusions  can  be 
traced  in  the  statements  of  the  prophet  to  the  events  of  his 
own  day  from  whence  Zechariah  seeks  to  draw  spiritual 
lessons.  He  considers  the  open  fountain  to  refer  to  the 
Levitical  arrangements  for  making  atonement  for  sin.  He 
observes  that  it  is  not  the  water  itself  which  is  spoken  of,  but 
the  fountain  whence  it  flowed.  In  this  he  thinks  an  allu- 
sion is  made  to  the  great  works  undertaken  by  Hezekiah 
for  the  purpose  of  providing  Jerusalem  and  its  inhabitants 
with  water.  Pressel  is  inclined  to  view  the  words  of  Isaiah 
(xii.  13)  as  referring  also  to  those  works  of  Hezekiah.  There 
would  be  no  objection  to  this  view  if  it  could  be  proved 
that  the  prophecy  under  consideration  was  composed  in  the 
time  of  Hezekiah.  But  an  idea  which  has  no  basis  except  in 
the  imagination  of  its  author  cannot  be  assumed  as  correct, 
and  an  argument  drawn  from  it  in  favour  of  a  pre-exilian 
date.  The  fallacy  of  arguing  in  a  circle  is  certainly  not  con- 
fined to  the  conservative  school  of  criticism. 

The  expression  "  in  that  day,"  which  occurs  so  frequently 
in  the  last  three  chapters  of  the  prophet,  does  not  signify  that 
all  the  events  spoken  of  as  occurring  "  in  that  day  "  are  to 
take  place  at  the  same  time,  or  even  within  a  short  period  of 
one  another.  The  events  stated  to  occur  "  in  that  da}'  "  are 
indeed  conceived  to  belong  to  a  special  period,  which  may 
be  either  long  or  short  according  to  the  nature  of  the  par- 
ticular case.     The  period  referred  to  is  always  that  which  is 

*  In  Isa.  xii.  3  and  Iv.  i  llie  grace  of  Jahavcli  is  viewed  under  a  different  aspect 
from  that  in  tliis  chapter  of  Zechariah.  No  reference  to  sacramental  grace  or  to 
the  water  of  Ijaptism  is  contained  in  the  passage  in  Zechariah ;  but  as  to  whether 
the  grace  here  spoken  of  maybe  considered  as  contained  in  baptism  will  altogether 
depend  on  the  standpoint  from  which  that  ordinance  is  viewed  as  a  channel  of 
Divine  grace. 


Ch.xiii.  1,2.]  THE  REACTION  AGAINST  FALSE  PROPHETS.   413 

treated  of  in  the  special  prophecy  in  which  the  phrase  occurs, 
which  space  of  time,  viewed  from  the  prophetic  standpoint, 
is  regarded  as  one  day,  or  one  definite  period.  It  need  not 
necessarily  refer  to  a  pre-Messianic  or  to  a  post-Messianic 
period,  but  may  be  a  portion  of  time  embracing  parts  of 
both.  An  examination  of  the  places  in  which  the  phrase 
occurs,  not  only  in  Zechariah,  but  in  the  other  prophets,  is 
sufficient  to  prove  this  fact.  Compare  the  frequent  use  of  the 
phrase  in  Isa.  ii. — iv. 

The  exiles  who  returned  from  Babylon  must  often  have 
been  reminded  by  the  prophets  among  them  of  those  sins 
which  had  in  the  days  of  old  brought  down  upon  their 
fathers  the  heavy  judgments  of  God.  Of  those  national 
sins  the  most  prevalent  were  idolatry  on  the  one  hand, 
and  a  disposition  to  give  heed  to  false  prophets  on  the 
other.  It  was,  therefore,  only  natural,  when  Zechariah  spoke 
of  the  banishment  from  the  midst  of  the  people  of  the 
evil  practices  which  had  formerly  caused  the  nation's  ruin, 
that  he  should  specially  mention  those  national  sins  (Heng- 
stenberg,  Kliefoth,  Reinke,  etc).  It  is  by  no  means  necessary 
to  suppose  that  those  particular  sins  were  common  among  the 
people  in  the  days  of  the  prophet.  Still  less  are  the  words 
of  the  prophet  to  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  prediction  that 
previous  to  the  arrival  of  the  day  of  grace  spoken  of  in  this 
chapter  such  transgressions  should  once  more  prevail  in  Israel. 
The  allusions  made  here  to  idolatry  and  false  prophets  have 
been,  indeed,  by  many  modern  critics  regarded  as  decisive 
proofs  of  the  composition  of  this  prophecy  at  a  period  pre- 
vious to  the  great  exile  (Ewald,  Bleek,  Pressel,  etc.).  Such 
"proofs"  are,  however,  eminently  unsatisfactory. 

But  though  it  is  not  necessary  to  imagine  that  the  prophet 
refers  to  the  sins  prevalent  among  the  people  of  Israel  in  his 
own  day,  it  is  too  much  to  assume  that  all  danger  of  idolatry 
was  past  even  at  that  period.     Zechariah  might  very  well  have 


414  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiii.  2. 

feared  that  false  prophets  would  rise  up  among  Israel  then 
as  in  the  days  of  old.  For  mention  is  made  in  the  book 
of  Nehemiah  (chap.  vi.  lo,  12,  14)  of  false  prophets,  plying 
their  evil  trade  after  the  Restoration,  though  not  perhaps  in 
the  same  manner  as  before  the  exile  ;  and  mention  is  made 
of  intermarriages  taking  place  with  the  Canaanitish  and 
other  heathen  people  of  the  country,  the  offspring  of  which 
marriages  were  unable  to  speak  the  Jewish  language  (Ezra 
ix.  2.  ff  ;  Nell.  xiii.  23).  Such  children  could  have  been  very 
imperfectly  acquainted  with  the  Jewish  religion,  and  must 
have  imbibed  no  small  amount  of  the  superstitions  of  their 
mothers.  If  it  be  a  fact  that  heathen  practices  and  super- 
stitions actually  continued  to  be  practised  for  ages  among 
nations  converted  in  early  days  to  Christianity,  ^  and  that 
Tj  fi.  i  distinct  traces  of  such  are  found  even  in  the  present  day  in 
t^/r  various  Christian  lands,  though  in  many  cases  deprived  of 
=»***'  '  their  most  objectionable  features;  if  heathen  practices  still 
^/v''"'  exist  in  many  places  even  under  the  profession  of  Moham- 
medanism ;  it  is  not  surprising  that  idolatrous  practices  of 
various  kinds  should  have  been  found  among  the  Jews  and 
Israelites  at  this  period.  The  idolatry  of  the  Chalda,'ans 
was,  as  Schegg  has  observed,  in  some  respects  peculiarly 
dangerous  and  enticing,  and  the  superstitions  of  that  people 
as  regards  soothsayers  and  magicians  were  easily  incor- 
porated with  the  tenets  even  of  a  hostile  religion.  Chaldaean 
astrologers  were  well  known  throughout  the  Eastern  A\orld, 
and  the  vaticinations  of  those  who  laid  claim  to  prophetic 
skill  were  often  believed  by  the  people.  It  is  not  at  all  un- 
likely that  many  such  superstitions  were  to  be  found  among 
the  Jewish  exiles  of  Zechariah's  period.     Some  of  the  Jewish 

'  See  abundant  proof  of  this  fact  in  Chwolson's  interesting  volumes  on  Die 
Ssabicr  unci  der  Ssabisinus.  On  the  fact  of  ancient  idolatrous  practices  still 
existing  in  Palestine,  see  M.  Clermont-Ganneau's  article  on  the  Arabs  in  Pales- 
tine, as  published  in  the  Quarterly  Statement  for  October,  1875,  of  the  Palestine 
Exploration  Fund. 


Ch.  xiii.  2.]     THE   REACTION   AGAINST   FALSE   PROPHETS.      415 

popular  beliefs  of  a  later  age  are  firmly  imbedded  in  the 
book  of  Tobit,  and  similar  superstitions  may  have  prevailed 
to  a  considerable  extent  in  the  days  of  Zechariah.  Distinct 
allusion  is  made  to  such  in  chap.  x.  2,  which  verse  would  by 
itself  be  satisfactory  evidence  on  this  head,  were  it  not  that 
those  scholars  whose  views  we  are  here  opposing  maintain 
that  the  prophecy  contained  in  that  chapter  also  was  com- 
posed in  the  pre-exilian  period. 

It  is  true  that  the  sin  of  idolatry  and  the  sin  of  giving 
heed  to  false  prophets  were  not  the  transgressions  for  which 
the  prophets  Haggai  (i.  5-10)  and  Zechariah  (i.  2-6)  specially 
reproved  the  people  of  their  day.  But  it  must  not  be  for- 
gotten that  Zechariah,  in  alluding  to  the  transgressions  of 
former  days  whereby  their  fathers  had  provoked  the  Divine 
displeasure,  distinctly  referred  to  those  great  national  sins. 
The  history  of  the  Jews  in  the  days  of  Zechariah  is  frag- 
mentary, and  we  have  no  full  account  of  the  moral  and 
religious  state  of  the  Jewish  people  during  that  period.  The 
instances  already  cited  prove  that  the  danger  arising  from 
idolatry  and  false  prophets  was  even  in  that  day  not  an 
imaginary  one,  while  the  statements  of  the  prophet  are  by 
no  means  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  the  sins  alluded  to 
were  no  longer  prevalent  in  the  land.  There  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  the  prophet  was  opposing  idolatrous  practices 
carried  on  in  secret  among  the  people  (Burger,  de  Wette), 
though  it  is  likely  enough  that  such  practices  did  actually 
exist.  The  fact  is  even  implied  in  the  charge  brought 
against  those  who  had  intermarried  with  the  people  of  the 
land  as  doing  "  according  to  their  abominations  "  (Ezraix.  i). 

The  view  put  forward  by  Kohler  that  Zechariah  alludes 
to  an  apostasy  of  the  Jewish  people  previous  to  their  future 
national  restoration  is  in  our  opinion  a  most  forced  in- 
terpretation to  put  upon  the  passage.  If  the  prophet  had 
meant  to  predict  an  apostasy,  he  would  have  announced  it  in 


4l6  ZECHARIAII   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiii.  2. 

distinct  terms.  The  very  notion  of  such  a  falling  away 
again  into  idolatrous  practices  on  the  part  of  the  Jewish 
nation  is,  we  conceive,  opposed  to  the  prophecy  of  Hosea 
(iii.  4,  5).  Lange  has  well  observed  with  regard  to  all  such 
theories  that  it  is  very  convenient  for  those  who  can  find 
no  historical  proofs  in  favour  of  literal  interpretations  to 
seek  to  transfer  their  difficulties  to  an  unknown  future.  We 
must,  however,  dissent  from  Lange's  own  view  of  the  passage, 
namely,  that  the  prophet  refers  specially  to  idols  of  the 
imagination,  which  Lange  seeks  to  prove  from  the  phrase 
"  the  names  of  the  idols."  That  theologian  observes,  that 
"  without  doubt  the  ideals  of  holiness  of  the  Pharisees,  Sad- 
ducees  and  Essenes  belonged  to  such  idols,"  as  well  as  the 
false  ideas  with  regard  to  the  Messiah  and  the  universal 
empire  of  the  Jewish  nation.  The  taking  away,  or  cutting 
off,  of  the  names  of  the  idols  simply  indicates  the  utter  de- 
struction of  idolatry  among  the  people  (Hosea  ii.  17),  the 
events  of  the  past  or  the  present  being  often  used  by  the 
prophets  as  types  of  the  future.  Hence  we  do  not  deny  that 
such  sins  as  Lange  has  mentioned  may  well  be  included 
under  the  phraseology  made  use  of,  though  the  idea  present 
to  the  prophet's  own  mind  seems  to  have  been  the  abolition 
of  actual  idolatry. 

The  prophets,  the  cutting  off  of  whom  from  the  land  is 
here  spoken  of,  are  no  doubt  "  false  prophets  "  (so  the  LXX., 
Syr.  and  Vulg.) ;  for  they  are  spoken  of  in  close  connexion 
with  the  idols,  and  with  "  the  spirit  of  uncleanness,"  which 
Jahaveh  would  also  take  away.  The  epithet  "  false "  is 
not  made  use  of  by  Zechariah,  because  the  real  character 
of  the  persons  is  clearly  indicated  by  the  context  (compare 
chap.  X.  2).  "  The  spirit  of  uncleanness,"  mentioned  in 
contrast  to  "  the  spirit  of  grace "  spoken  of  at  the  close  of 
the  preceding  chapter  (xii.  10),  is  that  "evil  spirit"  which  had 
so   often  and  so  fatally  manifested  its  power  in  the  earlier 


Ch.  xiii.2,3.]    THE   REACTION   AGAINST   FALSE   PROPHETS.      417 

days  of  the  nation.  The  use  of  the  article  perhaps  implies 
such  a  comparison.  That  evil  spirit  had  been  permitted  by 
God's  judgment  to  deceive  the  godless  Ahab,  and  to  lure  him 
to  his  ruin  on  the  field  of  Ramoth  Gilead  (i  Kings  xxii. 
21-23).  Our  Lord  has  described  the  departure  of  that 
"  unclean  spirit "  ("Trpeufia  aKaOaprov)  from  the  Jewish  nation 
in  one  of  his  parables  (Luke  xi.  24-26),  and  similar  "unclean 
spirits"  are  spoken  of  in  the  book  of  the  Revelation  (xvi.  14) 
as  gathering  together  even  in  nominally  Christian  days  the 
armies  of  the  earth  "  to  the  battle  of  that  great  day  of  God 
Almighty."  ^ 

The  prophet  cites  some  examples  in  order  to  point  out 
how  complete  would  be  the  change  which  in  these  respects 
would  come  over  the  Jewish  nation,  as  compared  with  its  state 
in  the  days  before  the  exile.  Not  even  the  natural  love  of 
parents  to  their  children  would  prevent  the  full  penalty  of  the 
Mosaic  law  from  being  executed  in  future  days  upon  all  such 
as  should  assume  the  role  of  false  prophets.  By  the  Mosaic 
law  parents  were  enjoined  to  deliver  up  their  children  to  death 
if  found  guilty  of  the  sin  of  enticing  to  idolatry.  Such 
offenders  were  to  be  stoned,  and  the  nearest  relation,  or  friend, 
was  commanded  to  cast  the  first  stone  at  them  (Deut.  xiii. 
i-io).  No  instance  has  been  put  on  record  in  the  Sacred 
Writings  in  which  these  injunctions  were  actually  carried 
into  practice.  But  in  the  case  adduced  by  Zechariah  the 
parents  are  described  in  their  burning  zeal  for  the  law  as 
doing  far  more  than  that  law  required,  and  thereby  themselves 
actually  becoming  transgressors.  For  the  example  given 
by  the  prophet  is  not  that  of  a  son  found  guilty  of  enticing 
his  parents  to  commit  the  sin  of  idolatry ;  the  person  is 
supposed  to  be  guilty  only  of  the  crime  of  uttering   a  pre- 

'  Rabbi  Salomo  ben  Yizhak  or  Raslii  conceives  that  by  "  the  unclean  spirit "  is 
meant  the  inclination  to  sin  which  is  common  to  man.  But,  as  Rosenmiiller  ob- 
serves, the  mention  made  of  this  spirit  along  with  "  false  prophets"  proves  that 
the  spirit  which  incited  those  prophets  is  the  one  here  signified. 

E   E 


41 8  ZECHARIAII   AND    HIS    TROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiii.  3. 

diction  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  which  is  assumed  to  be  false. 
In  the  case  of  such  a  crime  having  been  actually  committed, 
and  the  guilt  of  the  offender  clearly  demonstrated  by  the 
failure  of  his  prophecy,  then,  but  not  till  then,  the  man  con- 
victed of  uttering  a  false  prophecy  in  the  name  of  Jahaveh 
was  to  die  (Deut.  xviii.  19-22).  No  hasty  judgment  was 
to  be  made  in  such  a  case,  no  jealous  relations,  or  zealots 
for  the  law,  were  rashly  to  take  away  life.  Time  was  to  be 
granted  in  order  that  the  character  of  the  prophecy  might  be 
duly  tested  by  the  event ;  but  when  the  untruth  was  plainly 
detected,  the  false  prophet  who  dared  to  blaspheme  the  great 
name  of  Jahaveh  was  to  die. 

The  instance  given  by  Zechariah  is  marked  by  a  total 
neglect  of  all  the  provisions  laid  down  in  the  law  on  this  very 
point.  "And  it  shall  happen,  when  a  man  (or, any  one)  shall 
still  prophesy,  then  they  shall  say  to  him,  (even)  his  father 
and  his  mother,  they  that  bare  him,  Thou  shalt  not  live,  be- 
cause thou  hast  spoken  lies  in  the  name  of  Jahaveh.  There- 
fore they  shall  pierce  him  through,  his  father  and  his  mother, 
they  that  bare  him,  on  account  of  his  prophesying." 

The  passage  thus  describes  a  zeal  for  truth,  but  a  zeal  "not 
according  to  knowledge"  (Rom.  x.  2).  Instead  of  friends 
having  any  prepossession  in  favour  of  the  idea  that  a  relative 
of  their  own  might  be  honoured  as  an  instrument  of  com- 
municating a  Divine  revelation,  such  friends  and  relations 
would  regard  the  very  idea  with  abhorrence,  as  an  assumption 
manifestly  false.  Their  zeal  for  the  law  would  lead  them  in 
such  a  case  to  go  beyond  its  directions,  and  without  any  in- 
vestigation whatever  into  the  claims  preferred  b}-  a  kinsman, 
animated  with  the  spirit  of  hatred  at  that  which  they  would 
regard  as  an  attempt  to  deceive  them  in  the  highest  and 
holiest  matters,  even  parents  would  be  ready  to  pierce  their 
own  son  through  with  a  spear  if  he  .should  dare  to  pretend  to 
be  a  prophet  of  Jahaveh. 


Ch.  xiii.  3-]    THE   REACTION   AGAINST   FALSE   PROPHETS.       419 

This  view  of  the  passage,  as  we  shall  see  presently,  will 
remove  some  of  the  peculiar  difficulties  by  which  the  state- 
ments of  the  context  are  attended.  This  illustration  of 
Zechariah  sets  forth  most  strikingly  the  complete  revulsion 
as  to  prophetic  claims  which  would  take  place  in  popular 
feeling  among  the  Jewish  nation.  The  evil  spirit  which  had 
stirred  up  so  many  pretenders  to  prophetic  claims  in  former 
times  should  be  so  far  exorcised,  that  pretensions  to  super- 
natural inspiration,  instead  of  being  a  mode  of  attaining  to 
influence,  would  prove  a  sure  path  to  ruin.  Zeal  for  the  law 
should  be  so  flaming  as  to  consume  all  natural  affection 
towards  the  nearest  relations  in  the  case  of  any  such  pre- 
tence to  inspiration  being  put  forward  by  them. 

Though  the  passage  speaks  only  of  false  prophets  ceasing 
out  of  the  land,  that  fact  is  conveyed  in  such  terms  as  imply 
that  no  more  divinely  inspired  prophets  should  in  this  period 
be  raised  up  among  the  people.  Ewald  and  Hitzig  have 
noticed  this  point,  though  the  latter  has  added  the  incorrect 
observation,  that  the  words  of  the  writer  convey  the  con- 
viction on  his  part  that  prophets  in  general  were  false. 
Hitzig  considers  the  writer  as  refusing,  like  Amos  (vii.  14), 
to  place  himself  in  the  class  of  prophets,  but,  like  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel  and  others,  as  determined  to  oppose  them  as  a 
wicked  caste.  But  the  statement  of  Amos  (see  p.  424)  was 
made  in  a  very  different  sense,  and  Jeremiah,  when  he 
opposed  false  prophets,  himself  distinctly  assumed  the  cha- 
racter and  title  of  "a.  prophet"  (see  Jer.  xxviii.  5,  10,  11,  12, 
15,  xxix.  I,  etc.).  So  far  from  Zechariah  intending  to  make 
any  such  insinuation  against  the  profession  of  prophets  in 
general,  he  gives  very  clear  and  distinct  marks  in  this  pas- 
sage whereby  a  false  claim  to  prophetic  powers  may  be  dis- 
tinguished from  a  true  one. 

The  cessation  of   prophecy,  here    incidentally  alluded  to, 
does  not  by  any  means  imply  that  Israel  should  on  account 


420  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiii.  3. 

of  their  sins  be  left  to  grope  in  spiritual  darkness,  until 
the  day  of  national  conversion  spoken  of  in  chap.  xii.  10,  in 
which  no  man  .should  any  more  teach  his  neighbour  to  know 
the  Lord,  but  when  all  should  know  him  from  the  least  even 
to  the  greatest  (Jer.  xxxi.  34  ;  Isa.  liv.  13).  No  intimation  is 
given  that  the  gift  of  prophecy  should  be  taken  away  on 
account  of  sin  and  apostasy.  The  prophetic  gift,  instead  of 
being  represented  as  at  an  end  in  the  great  days  of  bless- 
ing spoken  of  by  the  prophets,  is  represented  as  one  to  be 
then  granted  in  greater  measure  than  before  (Joel  ii.  28,  29). 
The  gift  of  prophecy  was  no  longer  bestowed,  when  the  object 
for  which  it  was  originally  given  was  achieved.  The  work  of 
the  Old  Testament  prophets  was  accomplished  when  Malachi 
finished  his  testimony.  It  was  not,  however,  in  consequence 
of  the  sin  of  Israel  that  no  further  prophet  was  sent  to  the 
Jewish  nation,  either  to  arouse  them  to  a  sense  of  their  sin  in 
the  days  of  the  decay  of  national  religion  which  followed,  or  to 
reanimate  and  sustain  their  courage  and  zeal  in  the  glorious 
outburst  of  religious  enthusiasm  and  patriotic  heroism  which 
occurred  in  the  Maccabean  period.  The  Jews  had  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets,  and  they  did  hear  them.  Those  writings 
kept  alive  the  light  of  truth  even  in  the  days  of  religious 
indifference,  and  awakened  and  stimulated  the  martyr  spirit 
which  characterised  the  Church  of  Israel  in  the  gloomy  days 
of  the  persecution  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 

The  prophecy  must  not  be  regarded  as  arranged  in  strict 
chronological  order,  nor  must  the  state  of  things  in  verses  2-6 
be  viewed  as  necessarily  taking  place  after  the  national  con- 
version of  the  Jewish  people.  Zechariah  depicts  the  period 
which  was  to  occur  before  the  death  of  the  great  martyr 
referred  to  in  verse  7,  for  whom  the  mourning  previously 
spoken  of  (chap.  xii.  10)  was  to  take  place. 

The  sin  of  Israel,  in  the  period  spoken  of  by  the  prophet, 
would  hinder  the  complete  deliverance  of  the  nation   (chap. 


Ch.xiii.3,4-]  THE  REACTION  AGAINST  FALSE  PROPHETS.   42 1 

xii.  9),  even  as  the  sin  of  Israel  had  done  in  the  days  previous 
to  the  great  captivity  (2  Kings  xiii.  18,  19).  But  a  day  of 
repentance  should  at  last  be  granted  to  them  in  which  they 
would  mourn  for  the  sins  committed  by  them  in  killing  the 
prophets  in  general,  and  more  especially  for  the  crime  com- 
mitted in  the  murder  of  the  great  Prophet  and  Redeemer. 
The  national  sins  which  had  in  previous  ages  caused  national 
disasters  would  indeed  be  banished  from  the  land,  even  at 
the  very  period  when  the  gracious  efforts  of  the  Lord  on 
behalf  of  his  people  would  be  actually  rendered  ineffectual 
because  of  their  sin  (chap.  xii.  9,  xi.9).  The  unclean  spirit  of 
idolatry  and  false  prophecy,  which  had  once  exercised  such 
power,  would  be  exorcised  (chap.  xiii.  2).  The  gift  of  true 
prophecy  would  cease,  and  the  pretence  to  Divine  inspiration 
would  be  too  perilous  to  be  indulged  in  by  any  except  in 
secret.  But  the  very  reaction  against  the  national  sins  of 
former  days  would  ultimately  hurry  the  nation  into  a  more 
terrible  crime  (chap.  xiii.  7),  for  which  they  would  at  last 
bitterly  lament  (chap.  xii.  10),  but  for  which  sin  they  should 
be  terribly  visited  (xiii.  8,  9).  Days  of  gracious  reconcili- 
ation would  however  follow,  when  God  would  extend  his 
grace  to  Israel  as  a  nation  (chap.  xiii.  i),  and  Israel  would 
become  the  people  of  the  Lord  in  deed  and  in  truth  (chap, 
xiii.  9). 

The  false  prophets  themselves  are  represented  by  Zechariah 
not  as  altogether  ceasing  to  exist,  but  as  plying  their  art  in 
secret  corners,  and  as  confounded  and  ashamed  when  brought 
to  the  light  of  day.  In  former  days  they  had  been  bold 
enough  to  assert  their  claims  even  in  the  very  face  of  true 
prophets  raised  up  by  Jahaveh.  Now  popular  feeling  would 
run  so  strongly  in  an  opposite  direction,  that  persons  would 
be  ashamed  of  making  any  pretence  to  supernatural  visions, 
and  confounded  when  charged  with  having  made  such  as- 
sumptions.     Instead  of  being  anxious  to  be  considered  as 


422  ZECIIARIAII    AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiii.  4. 

prophets,  they  would  rather  seek  in  every  way  to  avoid  the 
reputation  of  such  a  dangerous  and  unpopular  profession. 
Hence  the  hairy  mantle  or  cloak  worn  by  some  of  the  great 
prophets  of  Israel,  and  afterwards  adopted  by  those  who  pre- 
tended falsely  to  Divine  inspiration,  would  be  entirely  aban- 
doned. Whatever  other  means  the  false  prophets  might  adopt 
in  plying  their  profession  in  secret,  the  old  devices  would  be 
discarded,  as  the  very  profession  would  be  viewed  by  the 
people  generally  with  contempt  and  hatred.  The  false  pro- 
phets are  not,  indeed,  represented  by  Zechariah,  as  some  have 
imagined,  as  "  repenting  truly  for  their  sins  past."  The  reply 
of  the  prophet  to  his  accuser  in  verse  6  is  not  represented  as 
the  language  of  confession,  but  as  a  lying  defence  set  up  in 
order  to  avoid  detection.  Such  defences  are,  however,  tribute 
paid  to  the  power  of  truth  ;  for  hypocrisy  in  religious  pro- 
fession, however  odious  in  itself,  may  well  be  regarded  as 
homage  paid  to  the  power  of  "  true  and  undefiled  religion." 
In  directing  attention  to  the  lying  pretences  and  false  excuses 
whereby  the  false  prophets  would  seek  to  screen  themselves, 
Zechariah  does  not  predict  a  time  when  such  sin  and  wicked- 
ness would  altogether  cease,  but  rather  means  to  describe  a 
time  when  false  prophets  and  soothsayers  would  be  driven  by 
a  popular  revulsion  of  opinion  to  deny  that  they  ever  followed 
such  contemptible  practices. 

The  "  hairy  garment "  worn  by  the  ancient  prophets  has 
been  described  by  Kohler  as  a  cloak  made  of  untanned  skins. 
Pressel  regards  it  rather  as  a  garment  formed  of  camels'  hair, 
such  as  that  worn  by  John  the  Baptist.  These  garments  were 
the  favourite  clothing  of  the  prophets.  Vitringa  {Covu)i.  in 
Jesaiam,  cap.  x.x.  2)  has  maintained  that  such  garments  were 
worn  to  indicate  a  strict  course  of  life  and  an  abstinence  from 
worldly  pleasures.  Hengstenberg,  however,  thinks  that  the 
"  hairy  garment  "  was  worn  by  the  prophets  as  a  "sermo  pro- 
pheticus  realis,"  or  an  "  outward  symbol  of  the  grief  for  the 


Ch.  xiii.  4.]    THE   REACTION   AGAINST   FALSE    PROPHETS.        423 

sins  of  his  nation  and  the  consequent  judgments  of  God." 
That  it  was  used  for  this  purpose  on  some  occasions  is  prob- 
able. But,  as  Reinke  remarks,  the  false  prophets  could  not 
have  used  the  hairy  cloak  for  this  purpose.  For  though  in  popu- 
lar estimation  "  the  dress  makes  the  man,"  such  persons  were 
remarkable  for  announcing  things  pleasing  to  the  people, 
saying,  "  Peace,  peace,  when  there  was  no  peace"  (Jer.  viii.  1 1  ; 
Ezek.  xiii.  10).  Though  the  prophets  were  not  "ascetics"  in 
the  mediaeval  sense  of  the  term,  many  of  them  having  been 
married  men,  it  appears  that  in  some  particulars,  not  per- 
haps easy  to  define,  they  did  adopt  a  peculiarly  strict  course 
of  life.  Elijah  seems  to  have  been  ascetical  in  his  habits 
though  he  did  not,  like  modern  ascetics,  abstain  from  the 
eating  of  flesh  (i  Kings  xvii.  6)  ;  nor  is  there  any  indication 
of  his  having  inculcated  any  notion  of  the  virtue  of  celibacy, 
an  idea  which  did  not  take  any  root  among  the  Jews  until 
in  later  times  they  imbibed  such  opinions  from  the  Gentiles. 
John  the  Baptist,  who  assumed  the  old  prophetic  garb,  was 
no  doubt  ascetic  in  his  mode  of  life,  and  perhaps  wore  that 
dress  in  token  either  of  mourning  for  the  sins  of  his  nation 
or  as  suited  to  his  peculiar  habits.  The  dress  as  referred 
to  in  Zechariah  seems  to  have  been  indicative  of  a  claim  to 
peculiar  sanctity.  The  false  prophet,  whose  examination  and 
lying  defence  is  narrated  in  verses  5  and  6,  is  not  said  by 
Zechariah  to  have  worn  such  a  garment,  though  Schegg  con- 
siders that  the  prophet  intended  to  represent  him  as  wearing 
such  a  garb,  and  as  maintaining  that  he  wore  it  only  as  being 
one  of  the  common  people.  The  text,  however,  does  not 
lead  us  to  any  such  conclusion. 

The  prophet  having  shown  the  national  opposition  which 
would  be  exhibited  to  all  such  pretences  in  the  period  of 
which  he  treats,  first  by  the  instance  of  the  young  false  pro- 
phet slain  by  his  parents  because  of  his  pretence  to  Divine 
inspiration,  and  secondly  by  the  general  statement  that  false 


4^4  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  xiii.  4,  5. 

prophets  would  seek  in  every  way  possible  to  avert  all  sus- 
picion from  themselves  of  having  anything  to  do  with  such 
practices,  proceeds  to  give,  in  verses  5  and  6,  a  further  in- 
stance which  more  fully  illustrates  the  state  of  the  times. 

The  case  is  that  of  a  man  accused  of  having  followed  the 
profession  of  a  prophet.  The  accused  is  represented  as 
stoutly  denying  the  charge,  and  as  asserting  that  he  never 
belonged  to  such  a  class.  So  far,  he  says,  from  his  ever 
having  professed  to  be  an  inspired  teacher  of  the  people,  he 
asserts  that  he  was  himself  but  one  of  the  humblest  class 
of  the  people.  He  was  no  prophet,  and  unable  to  aspire  to 
such  a  position,  for  he  was  but  a  mere  tiller  of  the  ground. 
As  such  he  had  been  employed  from  his  very  youth,  and, 
therefore,  had  never  received  the  training  necessary  for  one  of 
the  prophetic  order. 

The  words  made  use  of  by  the  accused  person  in  his  at- 
tempt to  repel  the  charge  are  very  similar  to  those  employed 
by  the  prophet  Amos  on  a  remarkable  occasion.  Amos  had, 
by  Divine  command,  prophesied  against  the  false  sanctuaries 
of  Israel,  and  against  the  monarch  that  ruled  over  that  king- 
dom. His  daring  prophecy  against  Jeroboam  II.,  one  of  the 
ablest  and  most  successful  monarchs  that  sat  upon  the  throne 
of  the  northern  kingdom,  excited  the  indignation  of  Amaziah, 
the  high  priest  of  the  temple  at  Bethel,  which  was  the  chief 
sanctuary  of  the  kingdom,  and  the  chapel  in  which  the  king 
of  Israel  was  wont  to  worship.  Amaziah  accordingly  com- 
plained to  the  king,  and  commanded  the  prophet,  if  he  had 
any  intention  of  uttering  any  further  prophecies  of  that  kind, 
to  leave  the  land  of  Israel  and  go  to  the  land  of  Judah, 
where  he  could  enjoy  a  quiet  life,  and  make  his  livelihood  by 
his  profession,  but  on  no  account  any  more  to  dare  to  utter  his 
predictions  in  Bethel.  To  this  command  of  the  high  priest  of 
Bethel,  Amos  calmly  replied,  "  I  was  no  prophet,"  or,  "  I  am  no 
prophet,"   "nor   was  I  a   prophet's  son" — (that   is,  I  was  not 


Ch.  xiii.  5  ]    THE   REACTION   AGAINST   FALSE   PROrHETS.        425 

trained  up  to  be  teacher  in  the  schools  of  the  prophets,  or  set 
apart  for  such  a  profession  (comp.  i  Sam.  xix.  24,  and  the  fre- 
quent mention  made  of  such  pupils,  who  were  termed  "  sons 
of  the  prophets,"  in  2  Kings) — "but  I  was  a  herdman  and 
a  cultivator  of  sycamore  figs,  and  Jahaveh  took  me  from 
following  after  the  sheep,  and  Jahaveh  said  to  me.  Go,  pro- 
phesy to  my  people  Israel"  (Amos  vii.  14,  15).  That  is, 
Amos  did  not  mean  to  deny  that  he  was  a  prophet  of  the 
Lord,  but,  on  the  contrary,  he  asserted  that,  though  he  had 
not  been  trained  for  such  a  position,  he  was  called  thereto 
by  direct  inspiration,  and  was  determined  to  speak  that  which 
the  Lord  put  in  his  mouth,  notwithstanding  the  threats  of 
the  priest  and  the  power  of  the  king. 

The  passage  in  Amos  casts  some  light  upon  that  in 
Zechariah.  It  shows  that  the  accused  person,  in  asserting 
that  he  was  a  tiller  of  the  soil,  was  in  reality  taking  the  most 
effective  means  he  could  to  repel  the  charge  of  his  accuser, 
and  to  remove  from  himself  all  suspicion  of  being  one  who 
professed  to  be  a  divinely  inspired  and  a  divinely  appointed 
teacher  of  the  people.  Such  a  person  was  not  likely  to  be 
found  among  the  lowest  of  the  people.  To  indicate  still 
further  the  unlikelihood  or  impossibility  of  such  a  charge, 
the  false  prophet  adds,  "  for  a  man  bought  me  (or  used  me  as 
a  slave)  from  my  youth."  From  my  very  youth,  I  was  pur- 
chased as  a  slave  for  the  purpose  of  being  employed  in  agri- 
cultural work  or  among  cattle.  If  a  herdman  or  a  plough- 
man was  an  unlikely  person  to  be  a  prophet,  how  much  more 
unlikely  was  it  that  a  slave  should  be  so.  Amos  was,  in- 
deed, a  remarkable  instance  of  a  herdman  being  a  prophet, 
but  no  instance  had  occurred  of  a  slave  being  one. 

It  is  a  matter  of  secondary  importance,  as  regards  the 
general  meaning  of  the  passage,  whether  we  translate  the 
verb  in  the  last  clause  "  sold,"  or  "  purchased,"  or  "  used  me 
as  a  slave."     Kimchi  renders,  "  a  man,  one  of  the  common 


426  ZECIIARIAH   AND    IIIS   PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  xiii.  5,  6. 

people,  taught  me  to  keep  cattle  from  my  youth,"  which  can 
scarcely  be  regarded  as  a  possible  translation.  Dr.  Pusey 
seems  to  follow  Kimchi's  view,  as  he  translates,  "  for  a  man 
hath  taught  me  from  my  youth,"  and  explains  it,  "  there  was 
no  room  for  his  having  been  a  false  prophet,  since  he  had 
from  his  youth  one  simple  unlettered  occupation."  Dr. 
Pusey's  objection  to  the  translation  "bought,"  or  "sold," 
namely,  that  it  would  have  been  contrary  to  the  Levitical 
law  for  a  Hebrew  to  have  been  held  so  long  a  slave,  is  far 
indeed  from  "  decisive  "  of  the  question,  as  the  Levitical  law 
was  in  many  points  not  always  attended  to,  especially  in 
such  enactments  (see  Neh.  v.  1-13,  and  comp.  Jer.  xxxiv. 
8-22),  and  it  is  very  conceivable  that  amid  the  disorders  of 
the  day  such  an  excuse  might  appear  valid.  Hitzig's  idea, 
that  the  words  are  to  be  considered  as  a  confession  of  truth, 
and  that  the  false  prophet  admits  he  was  a  runaway  slave 
who  had  taken  up  the  vocation  of  a  prophet  to  get  his 
bread  without  toil,  needs  only  to  be  mentioned.  ^ 

The  accuser  of  the  false  prophet  is,  however,  described  as 
not  so  easily  put  off  the  right  track  by  the  plausible  defence 
set  up  by  the  accused.  Returning  to  the  charge,  the  assail- 
ant asks  the  false  prophet,  if  his  statement  were  true,  "  what 

'  njp  is  a  very  common  Hebrew  verb,  and  is  used  in  the  signification  of  to 
found,  to  create,  to  acquire,  to  buy.  The  hiphil  occurs  only  in  this  passage.  Dr. 
Pusey's  translation  is  possible,  but  it  would  scarcely  bear  the  explanation  he  puts 
upon  it.  The  hiphil  is  most  naturally  explained  as  a  denominative  from  H^pD,  a 
possession,  obtained  me  as  a  possession,  that  is,  procured  me  as  a  slave  to  serve 
him.  The  hiphil  is  sometimes  found  with  the  same  signification  as  the  kal,  e.g. 
nn?n,  which  is  identical  in  meaning  with  nn3.  Comp.  Ewald,  §  122,  r.  But, 
as  Kohler  observes,  the  hiphil  may  have  its  usual  causative  force  in  this  verb,  in 
the  sense  of  completing  the  purchase.  The  ancient  versions  are  mostly  wide  of 
the  mark.  The  Targ.  has  nWSQ  '3^3i?tSt  Xt?'JJ<  *")X,  "for  a  man  made  me  a  pos- 
sessor (of  land?)  from  my  youth."  The  LXX.  have  Sri  dfOpunros  iyivvrjai  ne 
iK  vebrrfTbi  /xov,  which  Schleusner  explains  as  "begat  me  as  such,"  i.e.,  as  a 
husbandman.  This  is,  however,  questionable.  Aquila  fra^^  fie,  Symm.  inipuri 
fie,  Theod.  ^5ei^i  /xe.  The  Syr.,  connecting  the  verb  with  X3p,  render,  "and  a 
man  stirred  up  my  zeal  from  my  youth."  The  Vulg.  strangely  "quoniam  Adam 
exemplum  mcum  ab  adolesccntia  mca." 


Ch.  xiii.  6.]    THE   REACTION   AGAINST   FALSE   PROPHETS.        427 

are  those  wounds  between  thine  hands?"  The  wounds  be- 
tween the  hands  may  possibly  mean  wounds  on  the  palms 
of  the  hands,  or  on  the  arms/  or  (as  is  far  more  probable) 
wounds  on  the  breast,  between  the  hands.  Compare  the  use 
of  the  cognate  expressions  "  between  the  arms  "  in  2  Kings 
ix.  24,  and  "between  the  eyes"  in  Deut.  xi.  18,  vi.  8.  The 
phrase  certainly  cannot  mean,  as  Rashi  seeks  to  explain 
it,  "  between  thy  shoulders,"  where  persons  are  wont  to  be 
scourged. 

Hitzig  thinks  that  these  words  refer  to  the  first  case 
adduced  in  verse  3,  and  maintains  that  the  false  prophet  of 
this  verse  is  the  same  who  is  spoken  of  as  pierced  or  run 
through  by  his  parents,  but  who  was  not  actually  slain. 
Hitzig  refers  to  Jer.  xxxvii,  10,  where  the  verb  is  used  in  the 
signification  of  wounding,  but  not  mortally.  The  passage  in 
Jeremiah  is  translated  in  our  Authorised  Version,  "for  though 
ye  had  smitten  the  whole  army  of  the  Chaldaeans  that  fight 
against  you,  and  there  remained  but  tvoimded  men  (men 
pierced  through),  yet  should  they  rise  up  every  man  in  his 
tent,  and  burn  this  city  with  fire."  The  false  prophet  is  sup- 
posed by  Hitzig  to  be  seeking  to  excite  the  sympathy  of  his 
accuser  by  informing  him  that  the  wounds  he  had  noticed 
were  indeed  received  at  the  hands  of  those  who  ought  to  have 
loved  him.  But  such  an  interpretation  does  violence  to  the 
language,  and  renders  the  passage  extremely  pointless. 

Kimchi  explains  the  answer  of  the  false  prophet  to  mean, 
"  these  are  the  wounds  with  which  I  was  wounded  in  the 
house  of  my  friends,  in  the  Beth  Hammidrash  (house  of 
study)  my  friends  beat  me  on  account  of  my  writing,  when 
we  used  to  write  or  were  learning,"  in  order  to  make  me 
give   up    study  and    attend  to  my  pastoral    or  agricultural 

'  In  defence  of  this  translation  Rosenmiiller  has  cited  the  expression  ni3n"in  p3 
in  Prov.  xxvi.  13,   which  means  "in  the  midst  of  the  streets,"  as  expressed  in 

Prov.  xxii.  13,  num  linn. 


428  ZECHARIAII   AND    HIS   rROPIIECIES.  [Ch.  xiii.  6. 

employment.  Rosenmiiller  explains  it  as  a  confession  of 
his  having  been  punished  in  his  parents'  house  for  false 
prophecies,  which  opinion  is  not  very '  different  from  that 
of  Hitzig. 

The  word  here  used  for  "  wounds  "  denotes  frcsJi  zvounds, 
and  not  old  scars,  still  less  the  marks  of  old  castigations. 
The  fresh  wounds,  in  whatever  part  of  the  body  they 
may  have  been  noticed,  whether  on  the  hands,  arms,  or 
breast,  are  evidently  referred  to  by  the  accuser  as  affording 
proof  of  the  truth  of  his  accusation.  The  wounds,  there- 
fore, must  have  been  regarded  by  the  accuser  as  having 
been  inflicted  on  his  person  by  the  prophet  himself,  in  order 
to  arouse  his  prophetic  frenzy,  or  in  connection  with  some 
idolatrous  rites.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  such  rites  were 
sometimes  observed  even  where  Jahaveh  was  acknowledged 
to  be  the  highest  object  of  adoration.  In  the  idolatrous 
court  of  Ahab  there  were  hundreds  of  false  prophets  who 
were  wont  to  prophesy  in  the  name  of  Jahaveh  (i  Kings  xxii. 
5,  6,  7,  1 1,  12),  and  yet  at  the  same  court  priests  and  prophets 
of  Baal  cut  themselves  with  knives  and  lancets  until  the 
blood  gushed  out  upon  them  (i  Kings  xviii.  28)  in  order  to 
procure  answers  from  their  god.  That  such  practices  were 
common  among  the  Israelites  in  the  days  of  apostasy  is 
plain  from  the  passage  referred  to,  as  well  as  from  the  prohi- 
bition of  similar  doings  in  Deut.  xiv.  i,  in  cases  of  mourn- 
ing for  the  dead,  which  were  employed  in  later  times  by  the 
Israelites  (Jer.  xvi.  6,  xli.  5).  Similar  usages  were  found 
among  the  Philistines  and  Moabites  (Jer.  xlvii.  5,  xlviii  37). 
Hitzigand  others  are  quite  right  in  asserting  that  the  accused 
man  cannot  have  referred  to  "wounds"  which  were  self-in- 
flicted, inasmuch  as  the  verb  "  I  was  wounded "  is  a  pure 
passive,  not  a  reflexive.  This  objection  is  fatal  to  the  views 
of  those  who  regard  the  words  as  a  confession  of  some  sort 
on  the  part  of   the  false  prophet.     But  though  the  accused 


Ch.  xiii.  6.]     THE   REACTION   AGAINST   FALSE   PROPHETS.        429 

sought  to  account  for  his  wounds  by  assigning  an  untrue 
reason  for  their  existence,  the  accuser  regarded  those  wounds 
as  self-inflicted.  We  cannot,  therefore,  with  Hengstenberg, 
regard  the  statement  as  signifying  that  the  prophet  acknow- 
ledged with  the  deepest  shame  his  former  folly,  and  that  he 
speaks  of  himself  either  as  having  been  wounded  during  some 
idolatrous  rites  in  which  the  worshippers  actually  inflicted 
wounds  on  one  another,  or  because,  though  he  himself  was  the 
instrument,  the  real  authors  of  the  wounds  were  "his  lovers," 
or  the  idols  whom  he  worshipped.  It  is  no  doubt  true,  as 
Hengstenberg  has  observed,  that  the  particular  form  of  the 
verb  which  occurs  here  Clinj!;^^)  is  used  only  of  impure  love, 
and  specially  of  idols.  Still  the  objection  of  Hitzig  is  well 
founded,  that,  though  a  people  might  indeed  call  their  gods 
by  such  a  term  (Hosea  ii.  7,  10,  12  ;  Ezek.  xvi.  t,2,,  36),  a  single 
person  would  scarcely  use  such  a  phrase.  Though  it  be  true 
that  the  special  conjugation  of  this  verb  (piel)  is  used  in 
all  other  cases  of  dishonourable  love,  there  is  nothing  in 
the  form  of  the  verb  to  render  that  meaning  necessary, 
intensity  of  love  being  all  that  is  expressed  thereby,  and  the 
expression  might,  as  far  as  the  form  is  concerned,  be  used  with 
reference  to  parents,  or  any  friends,  whether  good  or  bad. 

The  simple  meaning  of  the  passage  seems  to  be,  that  the 
false  prophet,  when  pressed  to  explain  how,  if  his  statement 
was  correct,  he  could  explain  the  wounds  in  his  hands  or  on 
his  breast,  at  once,  with  a  ready,  if  a  lying  excuse,  replies, 
"  I  have  been  wounded  in  the  house  of  my  friends."  It  may 
be  possible  that  he  meant  simply  to  suggest  that  the  fresh 
wounds  which  were  so  suspicious  had  been  accidentally  in- 
flicted when  with  his  friends,  or  he  may  have  suggested 
that  these  wounds  were  received  by  him  on  the  occasion  of 
some  carousal  with  boon  companions.  The  words  are  too 
indefinite  to  allow  us  to  decide  what  sort  of  friends  are  re- 
ferred to.     It  is  clear,  however,   that  the  man  denies  com- 


430  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS   TROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiii.  6. 

plctcly  that  his  wounds  had  anything  whatever  to  do  with 
any  rcUgious  rite,  and  equally  clear  that  no  reference  is 
made  to  the  parents  spoken  of  in  the  eighth  verse. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  d©  more  than  allude  to  the  numerous 
passages  in  the  classical  writers  and  in  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church,  as  well  as  in  the  works  of  later  travellers,  in  which 
mention  is  made  of  wounds  inflicted  by  worshippers  on  them- 
selves in  connexion  with  idolatrous  rites,  and  more  especially 
in  connexion  with  prophesyings  of  various  sorts.  The  Latin 
poet  Tibullus  speaks  of  such  in  a  well  known  passage, — 

Ipsa  bipenne  suos  ca^dit  violenta  laccrtos 

Sanguineque  effuso  spargit  iniilta  deam, 
Statque  latus  pra^fixa  veru,  stat  saucia  pectus, 

Et  canit  cventus,  quos  dca  magna  monet. 

I.  Eleg.  6,  47-50- 

Similar  self-lacerations  are  spoken  of  in  i  Kings  xviii.  28 
in  close  connexion  with  the  priests  of  Baal  when  they  acted 
as  prophets  C^hJIl^ri^).  Such  voluntary  torture  was  not  had 
recourse  to  at  all  timcs^  but  was  regarded  as  a  mark  of  more 
than  ordinary  devotion,  and  was  used  only  on  extraordinary 
occasions. 

Dr.  Pusey's  remark  that  "the  idolatrous  incisions  have  a 
technical  name"  (/ini^)  ^•'^  "^  objection  whatever  to  the 
opinion  that  the  wounds  spoken  of  were  considered  by  the 
accuser  to  be  of  this  kind.  No  doubt  they  were  fresh 
wounds,  not  fully  healed,  wounds  caused  by  the  "  cuttings  " 
used  by  false  prophets  to  arouse  prophetic  enthusiasm. 

The  notion  that  a  reference  is  made  to  the  wounds  in- 
flicted on  our  Lord  on  the  cross  is  quite  at  variance  with 
the  entire  context.  Even  modern  Roman  Catholic  scholars, 
such  as  Schegg  and  Reinke,  have  abandoned  this  view  as 
untenable.  It  has,  however,  been  recently  adopted  by  Dr. 
Pusey.  He  arbitrarily  separates  verse  5  from  verse  6,  and 
supposes  the  latter  verse  to  refer  to  the  Pierced  One,  of  whom 


Ch.  xiii.  6.]    THE   REACTION   AGAINST   FALSE   PROPHETS.       43 1 

the  seventh  verse  treats.  But  who  that  desires  to  explain  the 
passage  according  to  its  context  and  strict  grammatical  sense 
can  give  in  his  adhesion  to  the  following  ?  "  The  most  literal 
interpretation  of  the  wounds  in  the  hands  harmonizes,"  says 
Dr.  Pusey,  "with  the  piercing  before,  and  the  smiting  of  the 
Good  Shepherd  which  follows,  of  whom  David,  too,  pro- 
phesied ^Aey  pierced  my  hands  and  my  feet  (Ps.  xxii.  16). 
What  are  these  wounds  of  thy  hands  }  .  .  .  And  He  shall 
say  :  With  these  I  zvas  tvounded  in  the  Jioiise  of  those  who 
loved  Me.  O  great  sacrilege,  sacrilegious  homicide,  that  such 
wounds  were  inflicted  in  the  house  of  those  who  loved.  He 
will  not  say,  '  with  these  I  was  wounded  by  those  who  loved 
Me,'  but  'in  the  house  of  those  who  loved  Me!'  For  they 
who  inflicted  them  loved  Him  not.  But  they  were  the  house 
of  Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob  and  David,  and  the  rest 
like  them,  who  loved  Me,  and  expected  Me,  Who  was  promised 
to  them."  Dr.  Pusey  makes  no  effort  to  point  out  any 
connexion  between  the  former  and  the  latter  part  of  the 
prophecy,  on  the  assumption  of  the  truth  of  this  exegesis. 

In  the  instances  adduced  Zechariah  points  out  that  one 
striking  characteristic  of  the  future  days  should  be  a  popular 
mistrust  and  hatred  of  any  claims  to  prophetic  inspiration. 
There  is  much  more  described  than  a  sound  reaction  against 
the  pretences  of  false  prophets.  The  age  is  represented  as 
impatient  of  any  such  supernatural  claims.  This  opposition 
to  false  prophets  and  idolatry  was  to  be  the  natural  result  of 
the  more  general  knowledge  of  the  ancient  prophetic  writings 
on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the  cessation  of  Divine  prophecy  on 
the  other.  It  would  lead  the  people  to  exhibit  an  antipathy 
against  the  peculiar  sins  into  which  their  forefathers  so  often 
fell,  but  it  would  render  them  liable  to  be  led  away  into  the 
excesses  of  a  blind  bigotry.  Reaction  from  sin  in  one  direc- 
tion is  often  wont  to  predispose  to  transgression  in  another. 
Opposition  on  the  part  of  the  Jewish  nation  to  all  kinds  of 


432  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  xiii.  5,  6. 

false  claims  to  Divine  inspiration  would  render  that  people 
liable,  at  the  impulse  of  a  blind  fanatic  zeal,  to  cry  out  against 
the  Messiah,  who  had  come  to  redeem  and  to  save,  "  Crucify 
him,  crucify  him!"  In  the  first  instance  given  by  Zechariah, 
the  parents  of  the  young  false  prophet,  indignant  beyond  all 
bounds  that  a  claim  to  Divine  inspiration  should  be  made  by 
one  whom  they  knew  so  well,  are  described  as  hurr}-ing  him 
off  at  once  (deserving  though  he  may  have  been  of  his  fate) 
to  a  too  hasty  death,  without  that  calm  and  quiet  examina- 
tion of  his  claims  to  such  inspiration  expressly  provided  for 
by  the  Law  of  Moses.  Similar  feelings  actuated  the  minds 
of  the  people  of  Nazareth,  who,  when  they  had  heard  the 
wisdom  and  seen  the  mighty  works  which  Jesus  performed 
(Matt.  xiii.  54),  asked  indignantly  concerning  the  young  car- 
penter whom  they  had  known  for  years,  probably  as  a  young 
man  of  a  silent  and  retiring  disposition,  but  who  then  came 
forth  in  a  very  different  character,  "  Is  not  this  the  carpenter's 
son  .''  Is  not  his  mother  called  Mary.''  and  his  brethren  James 
and  J  OSes,  and  Simon  and  Judas?  and  his  sisters,  arc  they 
not  all  with  us  ?  Whence  then  hath  this  man  all  these 
things  .''  And  they  were  offended  in  him"  (Matt.  xiii.  55-57). 
The  self-same  feeling  may  have  been  that  which  led  them 
on  another  occasion,  as  he  was  setting  forth  in  the  synagogue 
his  claims  to  be  regarded  as  a  prophet  like  PLlijah  and  Elisha, 
and  his  right  to  be  permitted  to  act  in  accordance  with  their 
examples,  to  rise  up  in  a  body  and  to  thrust  him  both  out  of 
the  synagogue  and  out  of  the  city,  hurrying  him  along  in 
their  rage  to  the  brow  of  the  hill  whereon  their  city  was  built, 
that  they  might  cast  him  down  headlong  (Luke  iv.  28,  29). 

The  fifth  and  sixth  verses,  when  viewed  in  this  light,  are 
no  unsuitable  transition  to  the  remarkable  prophecy  that 
follows  in  verse  7.  The  exaggeration  of  truth  Avas  to  lead  to 
the  sin  against  him  who  was  the  Truth,  and  the  change  in 
the  national  disposition,  from  a  fatal  readiness  to  accept  the 


Ch.  xiii.  7.]    THE   REACTION   AGAINST   FALSE   PROPHETS.       433 

utterance  of  any  pretender  to  supernatural  afflatus,  to  an  utter 
antipathy  to  all  such  claims,  was  ultimately  to  lead  the  Jewish 
nation  to  reject  him  who  spake  not  his  own  words,  but  those 
of  him  who  sent  him,  and  who  solemnly  affirmed  "  I  came 
down  from  heaven  "  (John  vi.  42). 

Viewed  superficially,  verse  7  seems  to  be  out  of  place  in 
the  position  where  it  is  found,  and  would  appear  more  pro- 
perly regarded  as  the  rightful  conclusion  of  chap.  xi.  The 
sword  was  spoken  of  in  chap.  xi.  (verse  17)  as  the  instrument 
by  which  the  evil  shepherd,  whose  character  is  there  por- 
trayed, was  to  be  destroyed,  while  no  shepherd  is  mentioned 
in  the  course  of  the  present  prophecy.  We  are  not  surprised 
that,  looking  to  these  points  alone,  Ewald  and  von  Ortenberg 
should  have  been  led  to  maintain  that  the  verses  following 
are  out  of  their  place,  and  that  they  ought  to  be  transferred 
to  the  end  of  chap.  xi.  There  a  shepherd  is  depicted  upon 
whom  the  sword  of  Jahaveh  was  to  descend  in  vengeance ; 
here  the  sword  of  Jahaveh  is  called  upon  to  do  execution  on 
a  shepherd. 

The  critical  arguments  by  which  this  transfer  is  sought  to 
be  supported  must  be  considered  elsewhere.  Even  internal 
evidence  is  strongly  in  favour  of  the  verses  being  retained 
in  their  present  position.  For  the  language  of  verses  8  and  9 
is  clearly  connected  with  that  in  chap.  xiv.  2  ;  and  Hitzig,  as 
well  as  other  commentators,  has  rightly  rejected  the  arbitrary 
severance  of  this  passage  from  its  present  connexion,  which 
has  no  support  whatever  from  MSS.  or  Versions. 

"  Sword,  awake  against  my  shepherd,  and  against  the  man 
who  is  my  fellow,  'tis  the  utterance  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts. 
Smite  the  shepherd,  in  order  that  the  sheep  may  be  scattered, 
and  I  will  turn  back  my  hand  upon  the  humble  ones." 

The  verse  does  not  begin  a  new  prophecy,  but  commences 
a  new  section,  which  partly  traverses  the  same  field  as  that 
which  precedes,   being  in  some  respects    an  enlargement  of 

F  F 


434  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiii.  7. 

what  has  gone  before.  The  sword  is  addressed  as  a  person 
wakened  up  from  slumber,  and  bidden  to  rouse  himself  to 
his  special  work.  A  similar  personification  of  the  sword  of 
Jahaveh  is  found  in  Jer.  xlvii.  6,  7.  The  fact  that  the  sword 
of  Jahaveh  should  be  called  forth  from  its  scabbard  in  order 
to  strike,  has  been  adduced  by  Hitzig,  Maurer,  Ewald,  von 
Ortcnberg  and  others,  as  a  proof  that  the  person  stricken 
must  needs  be  considered  as  some  one  who  had  sinned  against 
Jahaveh,  and  provoked  him  to  anger.  But  Kohler,  Keil  and 
others,  have  justly  observed  that  this  conclusion  by  no  means 
follows.  "  The  servant  of  Jahaveh  "  is  distinctly  represented 
in  Isa.  liii,  as  bruised  by  Jahaveh,  but  not  for  his  own  sin 
(Isa.  liii.  4,  5,  6,  8,9,  10,  12).  Similarly  the  smiting  of  the 
shepherd  is  mentioned  as  a  judgment  which  was  indeed  to 
descend  on  him  personally,  but  was  to  be  inflicted  in  order 
that  the  sheep  might  be  scattered.  The  flock  is  that  which 
in  the  previous  prophecy  (a  prophecy  intimately  connected 
with  the  present  one)  was  depicted  as  worthy  of  punishment, 

'  and  as  visited  therewith.  The  smiting  of  the  shepherd  was  a 
special  judgment  to  descend  on  the  flock.     If  the  shepherd 

I  was  to  be  removed  by  the  stroke  of  Jahaveh's  sword,  it  is 
because  his  death,  like  that  of  the  servant  of  Jahaveh  in 
Isa.  liii.,  though  innocent,  was  viewed  as  a  stroke  from  the 
hand  of  God.  The  striking  passage  in  the  Psalms  must  be 
recalled  to  mind,  "Arise,  O  Lord,  disappoint  him,  cast  him 
down  :  deliver  my  soul  from  the  wicked,  which  is  thy  sword  " 
(Ps.  xvii.  1 3).  God  is  often  said  to  perform  that  by  his  own 
consent  and  will  which  is  accomplished  through  the  means 
of  the  ungodly  (Acts  ii.  23.     Sec  note  on  p.  439). 

The  expressions  used  in  verse  7  are  rightly  regarded  as 
appellations  of  honour — "my  shepherd,"  and  "  the  man  that 
is  my  fellow."  Such  expressions  might  possibly  be  used  in 
solemn  irony,  as  some  modern  scholars  have  supposed  ;  but 
a  special  reason  must  be  shown  for  the  use  of  irony.     We  are 


Ch.  xiii.  7-]   THE   REACTION   AGAINST   FALSE   PROPHETS.        435 

not  at  liberty,  as  Schegg  has  truly  observed,  to  explain, 
according  to  our  fancy,  honourable  epithets  as  ironical.  No 
such  reasons  can  be  here  shown.  When  mention  is  made  of 
an  evil  shepherd  in  chap,  xi.,  his  character  is  distinctly  stated. 
The  reverse  is  the  case  here.  The  judgment  that  is  depicted 
in  the  verses  following  is  a  heavy  judgment  on  the  land  and 
its  people,  who  are  represented  as  godless,  and,  therefore, 
God -forsaken  (verse  9). 

The  expression  "  my  shepherd "  is  indeed  used  of  the 
heathen  Cyrus  (Isa.  xliv.  28),  and,  apart  from  any  other 
qualifying  statement,  might  refer  to  any  king  appointed  by 
God.  When  used  with  respect  to  Cyrus,  the  name  was  a  title 
of  honour,  and  Cyrus  was  so  called  because  he  was  to  per- 
form the  special  work  of  gathering  again  the  Lord's  scattered 
flock.  The  wild  godless  Pekah,  the  idolatrous  Manasseh,  the 
God-defying  Jehoiakim,  or  the  false  and  foolish  shepherd  of 
chap,  xi.,  cannot  be  so  designated,  even  though  that  shepherd 
was  raised  up  in  judgment  by  Jahaveh.  The  removal  of  such 
shepherds  could  only  be  a  blessing  to  the  flock,  while  the 
removal  of  the  shepherd  is  here  represented  as  utterly  dis- 
astrous. 

The  sense  in  which  the  title  is  used  is  more  clearly  defined 
by  the  words  "  the  man  who  is  my  fellow."  The  word  ren- 
dered "  my  fellow  "  (''/^^t3^)  is  used  elsewhere  only  in  Levi- 
ticus, though  there  is  no  proof  whatever  that  it  had  become 
"  entirely  obsolete,"  and  was  "  revived  by  Zechariah  out  of 
the  Pentateuch,"  as  Hengstenberg,  Pusey  and  others  have 
asserted.  Its  very  use  in  Leviticus  in  laws  which  affected 
the  ordinary  relations  of  life,  and  which  must  have  been  fre- 
quently appealed  to,  was  enough  to  keep  the  term  alive  in 
popular  language,  even  though  it  does  not  occur  in  the  extant 
literature  of  the  Hebrews  until  the  days  of  Zechariah.  In  the 
book  of  Leviticus  it  is  used  in  the  sense  of  a  neighbour,  a 
member  of  the  same  tribe,  and  as  a  synonym  for  "  brother," 


43^  ZECIIARIAII    AND    HIS    TROrHECIES.  [Ch.  xiii.  7. 

when  employed  in  reference  to  a  fellow-member  of  the  nation 
of  Israel  (Lev.  xxv.  15).  Its  meaning  in  Leviticus  must 
necessarily  be  the  guide  to  its  signification  here.  It  was 
originally  an  abstract  noun,  but  only  used  in  a  concrete 
meaning,  and  consequently  it  is  safer  to  reject  the  rendering 
of  Gesenius  and  Hitzig,  "  the  man  of  my  fellowship,"  though 
that  is  possible,  and  the  second  word  is  in  the  genitive.^ 

The  word  might,  indeed,  denote  unity  of  essence  with 
Jahaveh,  a  relation  as  close  and  intimate  as  that  designated 
by  the  same  term  among  men.      Hence  it  may  refer  to  that 

•i  OL^I  mysterious  unity  of  being  which  existed  between  our  Lord 
and  the  Father.  The  Christian  believer  may,  with  the  teach- 
ings of  the  New  Testament  before  him,  naturally  conceive 
that  some  such  idea  is    conveyed.     Such  a   sense,  however, 

i:«^  vi-vi  cannot  be  proven,  and  inasmuch  as  the  prophet^  must  have 
""''  ■  used  the  term  in  some  sense  which  he  himself  comprehended, 
it  is  more  likely  that  the  title  is  to  be  understood  to  mean 
similarity  of  position.  Thus  understood  it  indicates  that  the 
person  of  whom  the  prophecy  speaks  would  be  one  who 
should  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  the  sheep  which  he  fed 
as  Jahaveh  himself  As  "  the  shepherd  of  Israel,"  he  was  to 
be  "  the  fellow  of  Jahaveh "  (Ps.  xxiii.  i  ;  Isa.  xl.  11;  Ps. 
Ixxx.  2,  or  verse  i  in  E.V.). 

We  pause  here  to  consider  the  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy. 
The  popular  hatred  against  idolatry  and  false  prophets — 
the  good  features  of  which  sentiment  were  so  remarkably 
displayed  in  the  noble  struggle  against  that  sin  in  the  days 
of  the  great  persecution  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes — would 
ultimately  lead  the  nation  on  to  great  transgression.  That 
feeling  would  compel  the  false  prophets,  who  in  secret  sought 
to  ply  their  evil  pursuits,  to  resort  to  all  sorts  of  untruths  to 

'  See  crit.  comm.  It  is  used  in  eleven  passages  in  Leviticus — v.  21  (E.V.  vi.  2) 
twice  in  the  same  verse  ;  in  xviii.  20,  xix.  il,  15,  17,  xxiv.  19,  xxv.  I4,  twice  in 
the  verse,  and  in  xxv.  15,  17.     It  always  occurs  with  the  suffixes. 


Ch.  xiii.  7-]   THE   REACTION   AGAINST   FALSE   PROPHETS.        437 

conceal  their  actions.     But  with  all  the  zeal  of  the  people  as 
to  religion,  the  age  which  succeeded  the  mighty  deliverance 
which  the  Lord  granted  in  the  era  of  the  Maccabees  was  a 
time  of  religious  declension.     As  it  was  said  of  the  Redeemer 
that  he  could  do  no  mighty  work  in  a  certain  place  because 
of  the  people's  unbelief  (Mark  vi.  5,  6),  so  it  is  said  in  reference 
to  the  era  after  the  Maccabees  that  the  Lord  would  seek  to 
destroy  all  the  nations  that  were  coming  up  against  Jeru- 
salem, but  would   be   hindered    because  of  his  people's  sin 
(chap.   xii.  9 ;   see  p.   380).     Some    great   sins   were  indeed 
put  away,  but  others  were  indulged  in.     One  unclean  spirit 
departed,    but   seven    unclean    spirits    soon    took    its    place 
(Luke  xi.  24-26).     In   place  of  superstition  there  sprang  up 
irreligion.     Bigotry  took  the  place  of  righteous  zeal.     The 
sword  of  judgment,  which  in  a  theocracy  might  justly  have 
been  unsheathed  against  the  impostor,  was  'drawn  to  smite  the 
true  Prophet  of  God.     The  shepherd   of  Israel,  mysteriously 
identified   with   Jahaveh    in    chap.    xi.    13,   and   whose   con- 
temptuous rejection  is  there  depicted — that  mysterious  per- 
son   of  whose  martyr-death    obscure  hints  are   dropped    in 
chap.  xii.  10,  and  whose  death  was  viewed  there  as  a  piercing 
of  Jahaveh  himself,  which  was  to  be  bitterly  bewailed  by  the 
nation — that  shepherd  termed  here  by  Jahaveh  "  my  shepherd 
and  the  man  that  is  my  fellow  " — was  to  be  stricken  down  by 
the  sword    of  Jahaveh.     That  sword  was  to  be  drawn,  not 
indeed,  as  the  fulfilment  shows  us,  directly  by  Jahaveh  him- 
self.      Wicked   men,    Jahaveh's   sword,   as    they   are   styled 
(Ps.  xvii.  13),  were  to  execute,  not  Jahaveh's  wrath,  but  his 
determinate  counsel  (Acts  ii.  23).      The  servant  of  Jahaveh 
was  to  be  led  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter,  and  cut  off  from 
the  land  of  the  living  (Isa.  liii.  7,  8).     In  the  bitterness  of  his 
soul  he  was  to  cry,  and  for  a  time  apparently  in  vain,  "  Deliver 
my  life  from  the  sword,  my  only  one  from  the  power  of  the 
dog"  (Ps.  xxii.  21,  or  verse  20,  E.V.).     The  death  which  he 


438  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiii.  7. 

was  to  die  was  a  death  which  was  to  be  inflicted  in  the  name 
of  Jahavch,  in  professed  accordance  with  the  law  of  Jahaveh. 
The  sword  of  Jahaveh  was  drawn  against  him,  as  against  a 
false  prophet  who  had  spoken  falsely  in  the  name  of  Jahaveh, 
and  the  weapon  of  the  Law  (John  xix.  7)  struck  down  the 
Son  of  God,  the  very  image  and  representative  of  Jahaveh. 
Condemned  as  an  impostor,  in  avowed  accordance  with  the 
law  of  God,  Jesus  Christ  suffered  on  the  awful  charge  of  im- 
piety against  his  Father!     His  death  was  a  judicial  murder.^ 

This  wonderful  fulfilment  fully  explains  the  language  used, 
which  Zechariah  no  doubt  understood  to  signify  that  on 
account  of  the  sin  of  the  people  of  the  covenant,  the  man 
who  was  to  be  Jahaveh's  fellow,  and  the  shepherd  of  his 
flock,  was  to  be  taken  away  by  a  violent  death.  The  sin  of 
the  nation,  which  led  the  good  shepherd  to  demand  his  hire 
at  the  hands  of  the  wretched  flock,  and  led  them  to  add 
insult  to  their  neglect  of  his  guidance,  by  offering  him  a  con- 
temptible price,  was  permitted  to  work  out  its  own  punish- 
ment by  finally  culminating  in  the  commission  of  the  great 

^  Kliefoth  maintains  that  the  smiting  of  the  shepherd  is  not  to  be  understood 
of  the  death  of  Christ,  but  as  a  prediction  of  the  great  apostasy  which  is, 
according  to  him,  yet  to  come.  By  that  apostasy,  he  considers,  Christ  will  be 
cut  off,  so  as  to  be  no  longer  a  power  on  the  earth.  We  cannot  here  discuss 
his  interpretation  of  the  various  texts  to  which  he  refers,  which  either  speak  of 
such  an  apostasy,  or  are  supposed  by  him  to  do  so.  His  mistaken  view  that  the  ex- 
pression |*"1Nn  ?3,  "the  whole  land,"  throughout  this  book  is  to  be  understood 
of  "the  whole  world,"  has  led  him  into  strange  notions,  not  in  accordance,  in  our 
opinion,  with  the  analogy  of  Scripture.  He  has  a  great  difficulty  to  overcome  in 
the  fact  that  his  exposition  is  directly  contrary  to  the  natural  sense  of  our  Lord's 
words  in  Matt.  xxvi.  31,  in  which  our  Lord  most  plainly  interprets  this  prophecy 
of  his  death  on  the  cross.  Kliefoth's  attempt  to  get  over  this  difficulty  is  most 
unsatisfactory.  See  crit.  comm.  His  argimient  that  Zech.  xiv.  must  refer  to  the 
future,  because  it  speaks  of  a  gathering  of  "all  nations"  against  Jerusalem,  will 
be  discussed  in  our  remarks  on  that  chapter.  No  mention  is  made  in  that  chapter 
of  the  cessation  of  day  or  niglit,  or  of  an  end  being  put  to  the  constant  change  of 
seasons,  as  summer  and  winter,  which  Kliefoth  imagines  to  be  predicted  in  chap, 
xiv.  6-8.  As  his  argiuuents  do  not  rest  so  much  on  the  textual  criticism  of  Zech- 
ariah as  on  his  views  of  other  prophecies  of  Scripture,  they  may  be  the  more  ex- 
cusably passed  over  by  us  as  beyond  the  main  purpose  of  our  present  work. 


Ch.  xiii.  7. J    THE   REACTION   AGAINST   FALSE    PROPHETS.        439 

national  crime  of  crucifying  our  Lord.  And,  inasmuch  as 
that  crime  was  to  be  visited  severely  on  the  guilty  nation, 
the  death  of  Messiah,  which  was  to  be  the  prelude  to  national 
disaster,  is  represented  as  effected  by  the  sword  of  Jahaveh. 

The  flock  which  is  referred  to  as  scattered  in  verse  7  is 
most  naturally  explained  to  signify  the  sheep  spoken  of  before 
in  chap.  xi.  We  cannot,  therefore,  with  von  Hofmann  (in 
his  Schriftbeiveis,  ii.  §  2,  565)  and  Ebrard,  regard  it  to  signify 
mankind  in  general  and  Israel  in  particular.  Nor  can  we 
think,  with  Kliefoth,  that  the  Christian  Church  as  existing  at 
the  time  of  the  end  is  that  referred  to,  composed  of  believers 
and  unbelievers,  out  of  whose  midst  he  imagines  the  apostasy  ^ 

of  the   latter  days  is  yet  to  take  place.     Nor  can  we  even  \°^[ 
regard  it  as  signifying  the  early  Christian  Church,  which  view  / 
shall  be  presently  noticed.     It  rather  denotes,  as  Hengsten-     ' 
berg,  von  Hofmann   himself  in   his   earlier   work,   and    the 
critics  of  the  modern  school,  consider,  though  on  very  dif- 
ferent grounds,  Israel  in  general,  the  people  of  the  covenant. 
This  is  the  flock  of  which  mention  is  made  in  chap,  xi.,  and 
there  are  no  sufficient   reasons  to  suppose  that  a  different 
flock  is  referred  to  here. 

The  expression  which  follows  is  one  concerning  which  there 
is  some  difference  of  opinion,  first  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
phrase  rendered  in  our  A.V.  "I  will  turn  my  hand  upon,"  and 
next  as  to  the  translation  of  the  word  "  the  little  ones."  The 
phrase  "  to  bring  back  one's  hand  "  is  generally  used  in  the 

^  Compare  the  numerous  passages  which  speak  of  things  permitted  by  God  as 
done  by  his  decree,  though  often  brought  about  by  the  sin  of  man.  Gen.  xlv.  5, 
1.  20 ;  Exod.  iii.  19,  iv.  21  ;  Isa.  liii.  5-10;  Acts  ii.  22,  23  ;  Luke  xxii.  22,  with 
2  Cor.  V.  21;  Rom.  xi.  11,  12.  The  sword,  being  a  common  weapon  of  warfare  and 
instrument  of  inflicting  death,  is  spoken  of  here,  not  as  necessarily  implying  that 
the  shepherd  refen-ed  to  would  fall  by  the  sword.  We  read  of  Uriah  as  slain  by 
the  sword  of  the  children  of  Amnion  (2  Sam.  xii.  9),  though  he  really  fell  by  the 
arrows  of  the  Ammonites  (2  Sam.  xi.  24),  and  in  that  place  the  general  expres- 
sion occurs  "  the  sword  devoureth  one  as  well  as  the  other."  See  also  Exod.  v.  21  ; 
Ps.  xxii.  21  (E.V.  verse  20)  ;  Matt.  xxvi.  52. 


440  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiii.  7. 

signification  of  doing  so  in  anger,  as  in  Amos  i.  8,  "  I  will 
turn  my  hand  (or,  I  will  turn  my  hand  back)  against  Ekron," 
or  in  Ps.  Ixxxi.  15  (verse  14  in  A.  V.),  where  Jahaveh  is  de- 
scribed as  saying,  "  I  should  soon  have  subdued  their  enemies, 
and  turned  my  hand  (back)  against  their  adversaries "  (see 
crit.  comm.).  But  the  same  phrase  is  also  used  in  a  good 
sense,  where  Jahaveh  is  said  to  deal  out  his  loving  chastise- 
ment for  the  purification  of  his  people,  as  in  Isa.  i.  25,  "  I 
will  turn  my  hand  (back)  upon  thee,  and  purely  purge  away 
thy  dross,  and  take  away  all  thy  tin."  In  either  case,  how- 
ever, the  constant  use  of  the  phrase  employed  implies  that 
the  turning  back  of  the  hand  would  be  accompanied  with 
chastisement,  even  though  that  chastisement  might  be 
designed  for  purposes  of  purgation. 

The  word  translated  "little  ones"  (DH^i:)  ought  not  to  be 
so  rendered.  The  verb  is  found  in  two  places  (Jer.  xxx.  19; 
Job  xiv.  21),  and  the  word  which  occurs  here,  and  here  only, 
is  properly  the  participle  active  of  that  verb,  and  is  not  to  be 
regarded,  as  it  has  been  too  often,  as  an  equivalent  to  the 
adjective  Q''y)^)i  (Jud.  vi.  15  ;  Ps.  cxix.  141),  which  is  derived 
indeed  from  the  same  verb,  but  is  of  a  different  grammatical 
form.  Bottcher  has  correctly  pointed  out  that  the  word  in  this 
verse  signifies  not  those  who  are  ////"A-,  but  those  who  appear 
as  little,  the  patient,  the  humble.  This  signification  of  the 
word  proves  that  the  phrase  "  I  will  turn  my  hand  back  " 
must  be  here  taken  in  a  good  sense.^  For  the  phrase  is  not 
equivalent  to  "  the  wretched  of  the  flock,"  "  the  wretched 
flock"   of  chap,   xi.,    as    Kcil,    Rcinke    and    others,    think, 

•  We  cannot,  therefore,  with  Kohlcr  regard  the  sheep  so  termed  as  identical 
with  the  whole  flock  spoken  of  as  scattered,  or  consider  that  they  are  styled 
^^ little" small,  or  rvcak,  as  compared  with  other  sheep  which  fai-  exceed  them  in 
power  and  might  on  earth  (comp.  Jer.  xlix.  20,  1.  45),  under  whose  superior  force 
they  were  to  be  subjected,  inasmuch  as  they  had  themselves  refused  the  good  shep- 
herd's care.  This  need  not  imply  that  any  comparison  is  here  tacitly  introduced 
with  the  Gentiles,  who  arc  not  spoken  of  under  the  similitude  of  sheep  in 
Zechariah. 


Ch.xiii.  7,8.]   THE  REACTION   AGAINST  FALSE   PROPHETS.      44I 

treating  the  word  here  as  an  equivalent  to  "li^^iJ,  which  occurs 
in  the  Hebrew  text  in  Jer.  xiv.  3,  xlviii.  4,  where  the  margin 
has  the  adjective  ly^,  which  is  found  in  Jer.  xHx.  20,  1.  45  ; 
Ps,  cxix.  141.  Bottcher's  opinion  must  be  regarded  as  cor- 
rect, namely,  that  the  phrase  means  the  suffering,  the  humble, 
the  poor,  which  is  that  also  adopted,  though  for  different 
reasons,  by  Hitzig.  The  ancient  versions  and  readings  are 
noted  in  our  crit.  comm. 

The  text  evidently  signifies  that  the  shepherd  should  be 
taken  away  on  account  of  the  sin  of  the  people,  in  order  to 
hasten  their  punishment.  After  his  removal,  the  sheep  in 
general  were  to  be  scattered.  But  mercy  was  reserved  in 
store  for  a  portion  of  the  flock.  The  Lord  would  turn  back 
his  hand,  outstretched  in  anger  against  the  flock  considered 
as  a  whole,  in  love  and  chastening  grace  upon  the  lowly  and 
the  humble.  The  latter  would  not,  indeed,  be  free  from  chas- 
tisement, but  in  their  case  all  trials  would  serve  for  the  removal 
of  their  dross  and  tin.  Judgment  might  indeed  commence  at 
the  house  of  God  (i  Pet.  iv.  17),  or  with  the  humble  sheep. 
In  the  world  they  might  have  tribulation  ;  but  if  Jahaveh  was 
with  them  in  the  times  of  trouble,  and  would  give  them  the 
support  of  his  sustaining  and  comforting  grace,  they  ought 
indeed  to  rejoice  (John  xvi.  33).  Their  days  of  mourning 
would  be  short.  For  them  a  fountain  would  be  opened  for 
sin  and  for  uncleanness.  Their  sorrow  would  be  turned  into 
joy,  their  mourning  into  gladness. 

The  misery  which  was  to  accompany  the  dispersion  of  the 
flock  is  more  fully  set  forth  in  the  verse  that  follows  :  "  And 
it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  whole  land — 'tis  the  utterance  of 
Jahaveh — that  two  parts  in  it  shall  be  cut  off,  shall  expire, 
and  the  third  part  shall  remain  in  it."  The  expression  "  in 
all  the  land  "  must  not  be  regarded,  as  Marck,  von  Hofmann, 
Neumann  and  Kliefoth  imagine,  to  signify  "  the  whole  earth," 
but  rather  the  land  of  Israel,  in  which  the   flock   that  was 


442  ZECIIARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  xiii.  7, 8. 

tended  by  Jahavch  dwelt.  So  correctly  Hengstenberg, 
Kwald,  Bunsen,  Kohlcr  and  Keil.  The  passage  is  somewhat 
akin  to  Ezck.  v.  2,  12,  where  the  nation  is  spoken  of  as 
divided  into  three  parts,  all  of  which  were  to  be  punished  in 
a  different  manner.  In  2  Sam.  viii.  2,  David  is  recorded  as 
having  thus  dealt  with  the  Moabites,  destroying  two  parts  and 
saving  the  third  alive.  Isaiah  in  his  prophecy  {vi.  13)  repre- 
sents a  tcntJi  only  as  escaping.  Zechariah  speaks  of  a  tJiird. 
Both  are  to  be  regarded  as  emblematical  expressions  for  a 
fczo,  not  as  describing  the  exact  proportion  of  the  remnant 
that  should  escape. 

This  prophecy  met  with  a  striking  accomplishment.  The 
Shepherd  was  slain  when  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  crucified, 
an  act  ascribed  no  less  to  the  determinate  counsel  and  fore- 
knowledge of  God  on  the  one  hand  than  to  the  malice  of 
men  on  the  other.  In  consequence  of  this  national  sin  the 
nation  was  given  over  to  party  spirit,  which  rapidly  developed 
to  an  extraordinary  degree.  That  party  spirit  was  the  means 
of  delivering  the  people  into  the  power  of  the  cruel  shepherd, 
who  devoured  instead  of  feeding  the  flock,  that  is,  into  the 
hands  of  the  Romans.  The  Jews  madly  invoked  on  them- 
selves and  upon  their  children  the  blood  of  the  Messiah,  and 
wrath  indeed  came  upon  them  to  the  uttermost  (1  Thess.  ii.  16). 
It  is  needless  here  to  do  more  than  refer  to  the  fearful  manner 
in  which  the  Romans  quenched  all  the  Jewish  attempts  at  in- 
surrection. At  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus  upwards  of  one 
million  one  hundred  thousand  Jews  are  said  to  have  perished, 
and  during  the  revolt  of  Bar  Kokhba,  which  occurred  not 
long  after,  some  six  hundred  thousand  more  were  destroyed, 
and  the  whole  land  of  Judaea  was  reduced  to  a  desert. 

A  remarkable  reference  to  this  prophecy  of  Zechariah 
concerning  the  smiting  of  the  shepherd  is  found  in  our  Lord's 
words  (Matt.  xxvi.  31  ;  Mark  xiv.  27).  After  our  Lord  had 
partaken  of  his  last  passovcr,  and  had  instituted  the  ordinance 


Ch.xiii.7,8,]  THE   REACTION   AGAINST   FALSE   PROPHETS.       443 

of  his  Supper,  he  proceeded  with  his  little  band  of  dis- 
ciples on  the  way  to  the  garden  of  Gethsemane.  On  the  road 
he  addressed  them  in  these  striking  words  :  "  All  ye  shall  be 
offended  because  of  me  this  night,  for  it  is  written,  I  will 
smite   the   shepherd,  and    the   sheep   of  the   flock  shall   be  ^  * 


scattered  abroad  :  but  after  I  am  risen,  I  will  go  before  you  into  '^ 
Galilee."     From   the  use  of  the  phrase  "  it  is  written,"  it  is     -^ 
evident  that  our  Lord  intended  to  refer  to  this  passage  of.,..^L 
Zechariah.     The  quotation,  however,  is  a  free  one,  and  does  ^^ 
not  altogether  agree  with  the  Hebrew  text  on  the  one  hand, /=>^ 
nor  with  the  LXX.  on  the  other.     The  smaller  differences 
cannot  be  noted  here.      It  may,  however,  be  observed  gene- 
rally that  the  address  to  the  sword  is  entirely  omitted,  and 
the  imperative  changed  into  the  future.     The  meaning  of  the 
passage  is   preserved    unaltered.     The  closing  words  of  our 
Lord,  "  I  will  go  before  you  into  Galilee,"  may  possibly  con- 
vey, as  suggested  by  Reinke,  the  same  thought  as  is  expressed 
in  the  words  of  the  prophet,   "  I  will   turn  my  hand   upon 
the  humble  ones."     If  the  observation  be  correct,  it  is  plain 
that  our  Lord  understood  that  phrase  in   a  good  significa- 
tion. 

The  expression  "  the  sheep  shall  be  scattered  "  has  been 
often  regarded  as  a  prediction  of  the  flight  of  our  Lord's 
disciples  when  he  was  arrested  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane. 
Justin  Martyr  considered  that  event  as  a  complete  accom- 
plishment of  the  Old  Testament  prediction,  though  Ambrose 
explains  it  of  the  scattering  of  the  apostles  in  all  lands, 
and  Jerome  of  the  multitudes  of  those  who  believed  in  Christ. 
The  correct  view  appears  to  be  that  the  desertion  of  the  Lord 
in  the  hour  of  trial  by  his_niostJaitliful  followers,  whereby 
they  were  scattered  every  man  to  his  own,  and  left  the 
Saviour  alone  (John  xvi.  32) — a  desertion  which  added  so 
much  to  the  bitterness  of  "that  "  hour  of  darkness  " — was 
indeed  of  importance  in  itself,  but  still  more  so  as  prefiguring 


44+  ZECIIARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  xiii.  7, 8. 

the  desertion  of  Christ  by  the  Jewish  nation,  and  the  terrible 
scattering  of  the  flock  of  Israel. 

It  was  expedient  for  the  sake  of  the  disciples  themselves 
that  the  Lord  should  go  away  from  them  (John  xvi.  7),  in 
order,  among  other  things,  to  wean  them  from  the  false  views 
which  they  entertained  respecting  his  kingdom,  as  well  as 
that  by  "  his  precious  blood-shedding "  atonement  should 
be  made  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  Omitting  all 
considerations  concerning  the  necessity  of  Christ's  death  as 
an  essential  part  of  his  redeeming  work,  the  death  of  our  Lord 
was  also  necessary  for  other  reasons.  It  was  necessary  to 
teach  the  disciples  the  true  nature  of  his  kingdom.  Their 
unbelief  in  his  higher  nature  and  mission,  which  manifested 
itself  at  times,  notwithstanding  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  and 
the  wonderful  acts  which  he  performed  ;  and  the  "  hardness 
of  heart"  which  prevented  their  acceptance  of  the  essence 
of  his  teaching,  namely,  that  self-denial  was  the  law  of  his 
kingdom  ;  all  rendered  it  expedient  that  the  Master  should  be 
removed  from  the  midst  of  his  disciples,  that  the  Shepherd 
should  be  smitten,  in  order  that  the  disciples  should  hence- 
forth "know  him  no  more  after  the  flesh  "  (2  Cor.  v.  16),  and 
that  they  might  learn  practically  that  which  they  could  not 
learn  theoretically,  namely,  the  vanity  of  all  their  carnal 
notions  with  respect  to  his  glory  and  kingdom. 

Hence  for  these  causes,  as  well  as  for  others,  Christ  had  to 
go  "the  way  of  the  cross."  The  sin  of  his  own  disciples, 
therefore,  in  a  peculiar  sense  necessitated  his  crucifixion,  and 
consequently  they,  too,  were  to  be  chastened  for  their  un- 
belief and  hardness  of  heart,  though  in  mercy  and  in  love. 
Their  confidence  in  themselves  was  to  be  rudch'  shalccn,  their 
faith  in  their  Lord  thereby  confirmed.  They  were  first  to 
learn  their  own  weakness  and  unspirituality.  Afterwards, 
when  "filled  with  the  spirit"  (Eph.  v.  18),  they  were  to  receive 
power  to  be  witnesses   unto  Christ  both  in  Jerusalem  and  in 


Ch.xii.7-9.]  THE  REACTION  AGAINST  FALSE  PROPHETS.   445 

all  Judaea,  and  in  Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the 
earth  (Acts  i.  8).  Hope  had  well-nigh  died  out  in  their  souls 
when  the  third  day  dawned  after  the  crucifixion  of  their  Lord 
(Luke  xxiv.  21).  But  even  when  the  little  flock  was  scattered, 
it  was  the  Father's  good  pleasure  to  give  them,  when  humbled, 
the  kingdom  (Luke  xii.  32).  Though  they  fell,  they  rose 
again,  and  though  they  sat  for  a  time  in  darkness,  Jahaveh 
was  at  last  a  light  unto  them  (Micah  vii.  8).  In  their  case 
also  the  prophecy  was  to  be  fulfilled  :  "  The  people  that 
walked  in  darkness  have  seen  a  great  light  :  they  that  dwelt 
in  the  land  of  the  shadow  of  death,  upon  them  hath  the  light 
shined  "  (Isa.  ix.  2).  It  was  the  gracious  promise  of  the 
Redeemer  that  after  his  resurrection  he  would  go  before  them 
into  Galilee,  where  he  was  to  exhibit  himself  to  the  Church 
in  general,  to  the  five  hundred  brethren  at  once  (i  Cor.  xv.  16), 
as  him  who  was  dead  and  is  alive  for  evermore  (Rev.  i.  18),  as 
the  Resurrection  and  the  Life  (John  xi.  25).  There  on  the 
mountain  in  Galilee  was  the  Church  to  have  indisputable 
proof  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  there  all  hesitation 
and  doubt  as  to  whether  he  ought  to  be  worshipped  by  his 
followers  was  set  at  rest  by  his  own  words,  which  quenched 
the  smoke  of  doubt,  and  kindled  at  the  same  time  the  flame 
of  love,  "  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth. 
Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost " 
(Matt,  xxviii.  16-19). 

This  interpretation  does  not,  indeed,  exhaust  the  meaning 
of  the  passage.  The  scattering  of  the  sheep  of  Israel  was 
in  its  full  sense  the  dispersion  of  that  people  into  all  parts 
of  the  earth.  The  terrible  disasters  which  befel  the  Jewish 
nation  in  the  land  of  Israel  have  already  been  glanced  at. 
But  not  even  those  fearful  trials  should  cause  "that  genera- 
tion" to  pass  away  or  perish  (Matt,  xxiv.  34).  A  third  part 
would  still  remain,   which  should  "  be  left    in    it,"  i.e.,   "  in 


446  ZECHARIAH  AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  xiii.  8,  9. 

the  land,"  even  as  in  the  days  of  the  carh'er  captivity 
(Isa.  vi.  13).  These  words,  Hke  the  words  of  Isaiah  which 
relate  to  the  Babylonish  captivity,  are  not  to  be  pressed  too 
literally.  The  so-called  "  literal  interpretation  "  has  proved 
too  often  destructive  of  all  true  comprehension  of  the  spirit 
of  the  prophetic  word.  The  words  are  rather  to  be  re- 
garded as  giving  a  description  of  the  future  exhibited  in  the 
colours  of  the  past.  Amid  all  the  disasters  and  horrors  of 
the  national  deportation  to  Babylon,  the  poor  of  the  land  had 
still  been  permitted  in  considerable  numbers  to  abide  in  the 
land,  until,  through  their  own  folly  and  sin,  the  greater  por- 
tion of  that  remnant  fled  to  Egypt,  and  brought  upon  them- 
selves more  terrible  misfortunes  (Jer.  xli.-xliv.").  Amid  the 
fearful  calamities  of  the  period  of  which  Zcchariah  speaks,  a 
feeble  remnant  would  still  be  left  in  the  land  as  seed  of  future 
hope  (Isa.  vi.  13).  Some  few  relics  of  the  seed  of  Abraham 
would  be  found  in  the  land  of  promise,  and  in  that  land,  when 
purified  by  afifliction,  and  tried  as  gold  in  the  fire,  days  of 
blessing  would  dawn  at  last  for  the  ancient  stock  of  Israel 
(Matt,  xxiii.  37-39). 


CHAPTER    XIII 


THE  ESCHATOLOGY  OF  ZECHARIAH,   OR  ''THE  LAST 

THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  THE 

OLD  DISPENSATION 


CHAPTER     XIII, 


The  New  Dispensation  the  "  world  to  come,"  449 — Why  called  "  the  world  to 
come,"  450 — Conflicting  views  respecting  the  prophecy,  452 — The  Roman  war 
under  Titus  not  the  main  subject  of  the  prediction,  453,  460 — The  prophecy  not 
literal,  454,  460,  507 — View  of  modern  critics,  455,  ff. — '' Aday  of  Jahaveh,"  455, 
note,  457,  516 — ^Jahaveh's  fighting  with  the  nations,  456,  464,  517,522 — The  cap- 
ture of  Jerusalem,  457,  459 — The  gathering  of  the  nations,  458 — The  half  of  the 
remnant,  460 — The  remnant  not  cut  off  from  the  city,  461,  ff.,  518.  ff- — Parallel 
passages,  464 — Meaning  of  the  phrase  "to  fight  against"  or  "at,"  464,  note — The 
appearing  of  Jahaveh  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  465,  ff.,  472,  519 — Dean  Stanley 
on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  467 — The  phenomena  attending  the  coming  of  Jahaveh, 
468,  ff.,  478,  ff. — The  imagery  of  the  prophets,  469— The  earthquake,  469,  471 — 
The  Mount  of  Olives  only  mentioned  here  in  the  Old  Test.,  470— The  valley 
opened  through  it,  471,  472,  473,  475 — "  My  mountains,"  471,  and  note  2 — The 
escape  from  Jerusalem,  461,  471,  ff.,  519 — The  Mount  of  Cori-uption,  466,  470, 
473,  note  2,  519 — The  flight  into  the  valley,  473,  ff. — The  reading  of  the  fourth 
verse  according  to  the  Oriental  Jews,  475 — Different  opinions  regarding  Azal, 
476,  and  note. — The  earthquake  in  reign  of  Uzziah,  477,  ff. — The  holy  ones,  479 
— The  day  of  darkness,  480 — Different  readings  of  the  sixth  verse,  4S1,  and  note, 
482,  and  note, — Mistake  of  our  A.  V.,  483—"  One  day"  483— The  day  "known" 
to,  or  "  chosen  "  by  the  Lord,  484 — "  Not  day  and  not  night,"  485,  521 — Light 
at  eventide,  486 — The  "Regeneration"  of  the  world  beginning  at  Jerusalem, 

487,  521 — The  living  waters,  487 — The  rivers  of  grace  and  the  day  of  blessing, 

488,  521— Jahaveh  a  king,  488— The  land  of  Judah  referred  to  in  ninth  verse, 
489 — Objection  of  Lange,  490 — Jahaveh  one  and  his  name  one,  489,  490 — The 
change  in  the  land,  490 — The  Arabah,  491 — The  elevation  of  the  city  of  Jeru- 
salem, 493— Its  limits,  494 — Its  gates,  494,  ff. — The  king's  wine-presses,  496 — 
The  abolition  of  the  "curse,"  496 — The  lilessings  given  to  "the  remnant," 
497.  519— The  destruction  of  the  foe,  49S— Pcslilences,  499,  IT.— Confusion  and 
panic,  499,  500— Judah  fights  at  Jerusalem,  500,  ff. — Conflicting  opinions,  501  — 
Spoiling  of  the  foe,  502 — The  plague  of  the  animals,  502 — The  nations  wor- 
shippers of  Jahaveh,  503 — Israel  and  the  Gentiles,  504 — Supposed  reference  to 
Messiah,  504 — The  pilgrimages  to  Jerusalem,  505,  506 — The  feast  of  Taber- 
nacles, 505 — The  punishment  for  disobedience,  506 — The  mention  of  Egypt, 
507,  ff. — Its  punishment,  510 — The  bells  of  the  horses,  511 — Opinions  of  the 
Jewish  commentators,  512 — The  pots  in  the  temple,  513 — ^Jewish  interpretations, 
514 — The  abrogation  of  ceremonial  law,  512,  514 — The  Canaanite  no  longer  in 
the  temple,  515,  ff. — Concluding  survey  of  the  prophecy,  517 — The  Messianic 
dispensation  a  state  of  light  and  darkness  commingled,  520 — False  views  of 
Antichrist,  521 — The  glorious  future,  522. 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

THE   ESCHATOLOGY   OF   ZECHARIAH,    OR,    "THE   LAST 

THINGS  "   AS   SEEN   IN   THE   LIGHT   OF   THE 

OLD   DISPENSATION. 

The  passing  away  of  the  dispensation  of  the  law  of  Moses, 
which  as  limited  in  great  part  to  Israel  after  the  flesh,  might 
well  be  called  the  Jewish  dispensation,  was  justly  regarded  as 
"  the  end  of  the  age  "  (97  avvreXeca  tov  al(bvo<i,  Matt.  xxiv.  3). 
The  Messiah  was  viewed  as  the  bringer  in  of  a  new  world. 
The  period  of  the  Messiah  was,  therefore,  correctly  character- 
ised by  the  Synagogue  as  "  the  world  to  come."  In  this  sig- 
nification our  Lord  used  that  expression  when  he  uttered  the 
solemn  warning  that  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  would 
be  forgiven  "  neither  in  this  world  (the  then  dispensation), 
neither  in  the  world  to  come  "  (Matt.  xii.  32),  or  the  new 
dispensation,  when,  "having  overcome  the  sharpness  of  death," 
Christ  "  opened  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  all  believers."  ^ 
The  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  makes  use  of  a 

*  This  was  fulfilled  first  by  the  kingdom  of  heaven  being  opened  to  the  Jews 
when  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  were  preached  in  Christ's  name  to  them 
first  (Acts  ii.  33,  38-39),  and  afterwards  to  the  Gentiles  (Acts  x.  42-47).  The 
Gospel  dispensation,  in  one  aspect,  may  be  regarded  as  having  begun  with  the 
preaching  of  John  the  Baptist  (Matt.  xi.  12,  13)  ;  but  in  the  fullest  sense  it  did 
not  commence  till  after  the  resun-ection  of  our  Lord,  when  all  power  was  given 
to  him,  after  he  had  been  made  perfect  through  sufferings  (Heb.  ii.  10,  v.  9),  and 
was,  therefore,  henceforth  to  be  worshipped  (Matt,  xxviii.  17, 18).  The  first  great 
proof  of  Christ's  possessing  and  exercising  this  power  was  the  outpouring  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  (Acts  ii.  32,  33),  and  by  virtue  of  that  power 
from  on  high,  received  from  their  risen  Lord,  which  the  disciples  were  bidden  to  wait 
for  (Luke  xxiv.  49),  the  teachers  of  the  new  dispensation  went  forth  and  preached 
everywhere,  "the  Lord  working  with  them,  and  confirming  the  word  with  signs 
following"  (Mark  xvi.  19,  20). 

G  G 


/ 


n. 


450  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.xiv.  i. 

similar  phrase  when  contrasting  the  two  dispensations,  the 
old  being  in  some  respects  under  angelic  government,  while 
the  new  is  placed  directly  under  the  government  of  the  Son 
of  God.  "  Unto  the  angels  hath  he  not  put  in  subjection 
the  world  to  come  {ti-jv  olKovfievrjv  tt)v  iMeWovaav)  whereof 
we  speak"  (chap.  ii.  5).  That  writer  further  speaks  (chap.  vi.  5) 
of  the  powers  of  the  Messianic  age  as  "  powers  of  the  world 
to  come "  (Bwdfiea  yLieWot'TO?  ala)vo<i),  and  of  the  death  of 
the  Messiah  as  having  taken  place  "  in  the  end  of  the  world  " 
(eVt  (TvvTeKeia  roiv  amvaov,  chap.  ix.  26),  although  a  very 
similar  phrase  is  also  made  use  of  by  our  Lord  to  indicate 
the  great  end  of  the  world  (Matt.  xiii.  39,  40,  49). 

The  reason  why  the  Messianic  dispensation  should  have 
been  so  termed  is  plain.  The  "end  of  all  things"  (i  Pet.  iv.  7) 
was  intimately  connected  with  the  advent  of  the  Messiah. 
But  "  the  end  of  the  Avorld,"  in  the  fullest  sense  of  that  term, 
was  not  "  immediately  "  to  follow  either  the  revelation  of  the 
Messiah  to  his  people,  or  the  judgment  which  was  to  fall  upon 
them  for  rejecting  him  (Luke  xxi.  9).  It  was  not  granted  to 
the  prophets  of  Israel  to  understand  the  full  history  of  the 
latter  dispensation,  and  much  that  was  actually  revealed  to 
them  concerning  it  was  veiled  under  the  symbols  of  the  dis- 
pensation with  which  they  were  acquainted.  Even  in  Christian 
days,  the  apostles,  though  permitted  to  hold  converse  with  the 
Lord,  were  left  in  ignorance  as  to  the  period  w^hen  their  Lord 
would  assume  to  himself  the  kingdom.  They,  therefore, 
naturally  expected  that  great  event  to  occur  in  their  own 
days,  and  the  prophets  of  Israel  similarly  imagined  that  the 
coming  of  Messiah,  the  great  event  to  which  they  looked  for- 
ward, was  at  hand  long  before  "  the  fulness  of  the  time  had 
come  "  (Gal.  iv.  4). 

In  our  Lord's  great  discourse  of  "  the  last  things,"  the 
events  connected  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  of  which 
he  speaks,  and   which  was  a  type  of  the  dissolution   of  all 


Ch.xiv.  I.]    "  THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.        45  I 

things,  and  of  the  destruction  of  the  world  itself,  are  so  inter- 
laced by  Divine  wisdom  that  it  is  hard  to  separate  the  one 
from  the  other,  the  near  and  the  distant  horizons  often  ap- 
pearing to  intermingle.  So  also  the  prophets  of  Israel  and 
Judah,  whether  those  of  the  restoration  or  those  who  lived 
at  or  before  the  exile,  considered  that  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  revealed  to  them  as  destined  to  occur  in  the  day 
of  the  Lord,  was  to  be  closely  connected  with  "  the  end 
of  all  things,"  which  latter  event  they  but  darkly  com- 
prehended. 

J.  P.  Lange  has  justly  observed  that  the  sketches  of  "  the 
last  things  "  given  by  the  various  prophets  are  similar  in  their 
outlines,  though  the  details  exhibit  considerable  diversity. 
Thus  he  notes  that  Ezekiel  speaks  of  a  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem (chap,  xxxiii.),  the  judgment  upon  the  nations  (chaps. 
XXXV.,  xxxvi.),  the  national  restoration  of  Israel,  and  the  days 
of  blessing  in  store  for  that  people  (chap,  xxxvi.,  xxxvii.). 
After  those  events,  though  not  necessarily  as  succeeding 
them  in  time,  Ezekiel  predicts  an  invasion  of  Gog  and 
Magog  (chaps,  xxxviii.,  xxxix.),  and  the  building  of  the 
mystical  temple  (chaps,  xl.-xlvii.).  This  last  event  Lange, 
indeed,  considers  to  be  identical  with  the  transformation  of 
the  world.  In  consequence,  however,  of  the  vision  of  "the 
living  water  "  with  which  it  closes,  we  are  more  disposed  to 
regard  that  great  prophecy,  not  as  a  picture  of  a  day  still 
future,  but  of  the  day  of  grace  now  present,  but  which  is 
destined  to  be  yet  more  glorious.  Daniel  similarly  predicts 
the  death  of  the  Messiah,  and  the  destruction  of  the  holy  city 
which  was  to  follow  (chap.  ix.  24-27),  the  judgment  of  the 
nations  (chaps,  xi.-xii.  i),  the  resurrection,  and  the  commence- 
ment of  the  time  of  the  end  (chap.  xii.  2,  3).  Our  Lord's 
discourse  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  treats  also  of  these  several 
points,  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  judgment  on  the 
nations  (Matt,  xxiv,  7,  ff.),  the  time  of  trouble  (akin  to  that 


452  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS   PROrHECIES.  [Ch.  xiv.  i. 

mentioned  in  Dan.  xii.  i),  and  lastly  Christ's  second  advent  in 
glory. 

In  the  chapter  of  Zechariah  upon  the  discussion  of  which 
we  are  now  entering,  the  judgment  on  Jerusalem,  spoken 
of  in  the  preceding  chapter  (xiii.  8,  9),  is  presented  to  the 
prophet's  view,  under  a  different  aspect.  The  closing  words 
of  Dan.  ix.  26,  27,  are  related  to  the  prophecy  of  Dan.  xii.  i, 
in  a  somewhat  similar  manner  to  that  in  which  Zech.  xiii.  8,  9, 
is  related  to  Zech.  xiv.  i,  ff.  If  the  prophecy  be  considered 
as  a  whole,  it  is  impossible  to  regard  it  as  a  prediction  of  the 
taking  of  Jerusalem  in  the  days  of  the  Maccabees,  even  if 
we  were  to  suppose  that  the  events  subsequently  related 
extend  to  the  early  days  of  the  Christian  dispensation.  This 
view  has  been  put  forth,  indeed,  with  certain  diversities  of 
opinion  in  detail,  by  Calvin,  Grotius,  Venema,  etc.  It  is 
impossible,  however,  to  explain  the  chapter  satisfactorily 
according  to  this  interpretation.  On  the  other  hand,  those 
scholars  who,  like  Hitzig,  Knobel,  Maurer  and  Ewald,  assign 
the  composition  of  the  prophecy  to  a  pre-cxilian  writer, 
consider  it  to  be  a  prediction  of  the  destruction  of  the  city 
by  Nebuchadnezzar.  It  is  in  vain  to  seek  to  overthrow 
this  view  by  simply  arguing  that  the  events  which  then  took 
place  did  not  correspond  to  those  here  spoken  of,  for  the 
reply  would  be  that  the  prophet  was  no  doubt  mistaken  in  his 
hopes,  and  that  the  deliverance  he  announced  never  actually 
occurred.  But  all  the  prophets  who  predicted  an  overthrow 
of  the  holy  city  spoke  of  such  an  event  as  a  judgment  from 
God  ;  and  when  they  speak  of  mercy  being  ultimately  vouch- 
safed to  the  people  of  Israel,  they  predict  a  day  of  previous 
repentance  on  their  part.  But  if  this  chapter  be  viewed  as  a 
prophecy  separate  from  that  of  chap,  xii.,  no  mention  what- 
ever is  made  of  any  repentance  on  the  part  of  the  people  ; 
and,  as  Kohler  has  well  observed,  such  a  prediction  as  this  of 
Zech.  xiv.,  addressed   to  Judah  in  the  last  decennium  before 


Ch.xiv.i.]    "THE  LAST  THINGS  '^  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.      453 

the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  could  have  only  exerted  a  ruin- 
ous influence  ;  for  instead  of  keeping  before  the  minds  of  a 
corrupt  people  their  sin  and  the  punishment  threatened  by- 
God  in  consequence  of  sin,  from  which  only  true  repentance 
and  conversion  could  save  them,  the  prophet  does  not  here 
speak  of  sin  and  judgment,  repentance  or  conversion,  but  he 
speaks  of  the  threatened  catastrophe  as  indeed  a  heavy  trial, 
but  one  during  which  Jahaveh  would  appear,  to  make  an 
end  of  his  people's  woes,  and  to  execute  a  terrible  judgment 
upon  their  enemies. 

Considerable  difficulties,  too,  lie  in  the  way  of  those  who 
regard  the  prophecy,  with  Cyrill  and  Theodoret  among  the 
Fathers,  and  Marck,  Henderson  and  others  among  later 
expositors,  as  a  direct  prophecy  of  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem by  the  Romans  under  Titus.  That  event  is  indeed 
included  under  the  terms  of  the  prophecy.  But  though  it 
was  revealed  to  the  prophet  that  a  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
would  follow  in  the  wake  of  the  crime  of  rejecting  the 
Messiah,  it  was  not  given  to  him  to  comprehend  the  details 
of  that  judgment.  The  idea  presented  in  this  chapter  is  that 
of  a  people  purified  in  the  furnace  of  affliction,  and  of  a 
remnant  towards  which,  when  humbled,  Jahaveh  would  turn 
his  hand,  and  for  whom  a  refuge  would  be  provided — of  a 
day  of  blessing  following  a  day  of  trial,  and  an  ultimate 
triumph  of  Divine  holiness  and  of  Divine  grace.  In  other; 
words,  we  view  the  prophecy  as  referring  to  the  great  national; 
disaster  with  which  the  Jewish  dispensation  would  close,  thatl 
judgment,  however,  being  regarded  as  immediately  preceding! 
the  time  of  the  end.  The  prophecy,  too,  is  conceived  in  the 
spirit  of  the  old  dispensation,  according  to  which  Jerusalem 
was  viewed  as  the  religious  centre  of  the  world.  Thus  the 
prophet  dreams  of  the  future  glory  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem, 
and  of  living  waters  proceeding  forth  from  that  city,  a  pro- 
phecy which  has  been  fulfilled  in  a  spiritual  manner  by  the 


454  ZECHARIAII   AND    IIIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.xiv.  i. 

living  waters  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  which  have  issued  forth 
from  Jerusalem  for  the  healing  of  the  nations.  In  other 
words,  the  chapter  appears  to  be  an  ideal  description  of  "the 
last  things,"  i.e.,  of  the  close  of  the  Jewish,  and  of  the  bringing 
in  and  ultimate  success  of  the  new  dispensation,  which  was  to 
culminate  in  the  diffusion  of  the  religion  of  Jahaveh  through- 
out the  world,  and  to  include  that  day  of  glory  in  which, 
when  "  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  "  shall  have  come  in,  all 
Israel  shall  be  saved.  We  are  not  inclined  to  agree  with 
those  who,  disregarding  altogether  the  natural  connexion  of 
this  prophecy  with  that  at  the  close  of  chap,  xiii.,  look  upon 
this  chapter  as  containing  a  prophecy  of  future  events  to  be 
literally  accomplished  at  some  epoch  in  the  world's  history. 
'  The  prophecy  cannot,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  course  of  our 
discussion,  be  regarded  as  one  designed  to  be  literally  ful- 
filled. It  abounds  with  ideal  descriptions  of  great  realities. 
But  we  do  not  agree  with  those  who  view  Jerusalem  as  simply 
meaning  the  Church  of  Christ.  All  through  the  prophecy 
the  actual  Jerusalem  is  thought  of,  though  by  means  of  the 
destruction  of  that  city  salvation  is  ultimately  to  be  brought 
to  the  race  of  Israel.  The  woes  of  Jerusalem  are  regarded  in 
the  light  of  this  prophecy  as  the  means  by  which  at  last  a 
fairer  and  nobler  Jerusalem  is  to  be  established. 

In  Zech.  xiv.,  as  in  the  earlier  prophets,  and  in  our  Lord's 
discourse,  the  destruction  of  the  city,  the  judgment  on  the 
victorious  nations,  the  deliverance  of  the  vanquished,  the 
shaking  of  the  earth,  the  appearance  of  the  Lord  for  his 
people,  with  its  blessed  results,  are  all  successively  delineated. 
At  Jerusalem  the  final  punishment  is  inflicted  on  Israel,  at 
Jerusalem  Israel  is  finally  saved.  The  regeneration  of  the 
world  (Matt.  xix.  28)  begins  at  that  city,  living  waters  go 
forth  therefrom  ;  the  very  nations  are  vanquished  only  to  be 
blessed,  and  the  feast  of  tabernacles  as  a  feast  of  joy  and 
thanksgiving  is  kept  by  all  in  the  renovated  Jerusalem.    "The 


Ch.xiv.i.]    "THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.      455 

last  things  "  are  thus  suitably  depicted  by  a  priest-prophet 
of  the  old  dispensation,  and  at  the  close  of  his  book  he  very 
beautifully  brings  all  nations  up  to  the  temple  and  leaves 
them  there. 

Ewald,  von  Ortenberg  and  others,  think  that  this  conclud- 
ing chapter  ought  to  be  regarded  as  forming  an  independent 
prophecy.  ^  On  the  other  hand,  Bleek,  Kohler,  Keil  and 
others,  view  it  as  a  continuation  of  the  preceding  chapter, 
and  as  giving  a  further  account  of  the  judgment  on  Israel 
and  the  purification  of  the  people  so  concisely  related  at  the 
close  of  that  chapter.  We  agree  in  the  main  with  this  view. 
We  cannot  agree  with  Kohler  in  considering  that  the  events 
recorded  in  this  chapter  are  to  be  regarded  as  future  and 
as  taking  place  after  the  national  conversion  of  Israel,  on 
the  ground  that  the  restoration  of  Israel  to  God's  favour  is 
alluded  to  in  the  closing  verse  of  chap.  xiii.  The  prophets 
frequently  speak  generally  of  the  final  results  of  an  event, 
and  afterwards  proceed  to  give  further  details.  Any  attempt 
to  regard  all  the  statements  of  the  prophets  as  necessarily 
succeeding  one  another  in  chronological  order  would  reduce 
many  of  their  prophecies  to  a  mass  of  confusion. 

The  expression  in  the  first  verse,  "  behold,  a  day  is  coming 
for  Jahaveh,"  -  intimates  that  the  day  so  referred  to  would  be 

^  Hitzig  maintains  also  that  this  chapter  forms  a  separate  prediction,  though 
as  he  admits  that  the  thirteenth  chapter  has  exerted  some  influence  on  the 
fourteenth,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  the  prophecy  can  be  regarded  as  independent. 
Hitzig  (with  Hengstenberg  and  others)  regards  it  as  connected  with  chap.  xii.  9, 
and  as  giving  an  account  of  the  overthrow  of  the  confederacy  of  the  nations 
against  Jerusalem  alluded  to  in  that  chapter.  But  see  our  explanation  of  that 
chapter,  and  more  especially  of  verse  9,  on  p.  380 

2  The  phrase  niH'''?  S3  DV  is  equivalent  to  HlSaV  nin^b  DV  in  Isa.  ii.  12. 
The  day  of  the  destruction  of  Babylon  is  termed  by  the  prophet  Isaiah  nin""  DV 
(chap.  xiii.  6  and  9).  The  construction  with  ?,  instead  of  the  construct  statefollowed 
by  a  genitive,  is  chosen  in  order  to  mark  the  indefinite  character  of  the  day  referred 
to  by  the  prophet,  and  ought  to  be  rendered,  not  "the  day,"  but  "a  day."  It  is 
used  generally  in  cases  where  the  tirst  noun  has  to  be  marked  as  definite,  and, 
therefore,  requires  the  article,  which  cannot  (unless  in  exceptional  cases)  be  attached 


45 5  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  xiv.  1-3. 

a  day  which  would  belong  to  Jahav^eh,  and  in  which  he  would 
be  glorified  by  the  wondrous  exhibition  of  his  majesty  and 
power,  but  not  necessarily  meaning  that  the  day  of  wrath 
would  be  brought  about  by  his  power.  Verse  3  seems  de- 
cisive on  this  point.  The  rendering  of  our  A.  V.  "  behold  the 
day  of  the  Lord  cometh  "  is  objectionable,  because  it  implies 
that  the  day  of  which  the  prophet  speaks  must  needs  be 
"  the  great  day  of  the  Lord." 

The  day  predicted  is  further  described  in  the  third  verse  as 
one  in  which  Jahavch  will  go  forth  and  fight  with  the  nations 
gathered  together  against  his  people,  although  those  nations 
are  spoken  of  in  verse  i  as  gathered  together  by  him  to  exe- 
cute judgment  against  Jerusalem.  The  expressions  made  use 
of  do  not  prove  that  the  great  day  of  God  is  signified.  For 
in  the  book  of  Micah  (chap.  i.  3,  ff.)  Jahaveh  is  described 
as  "going  forth  out  of  his  place,"  and  descending  from 
heaven  to  punish  the  sins  committed  in  Samaria  and  Jeru- 
salem by  the  men  of  Israel  and  the  people  of  Judah  (comp. 
Isa.  xxvi.  21).  Frequent  mention  is  made  in  the  Sacred 
Writings  of  the  Lord  fighting  in  behalf  of  his  people  against 
the  nations.  Thus  he  fought  for  Israel  at  the  Red  Sea 
(Exod.  xiv.  14),  in  the  great  battle  at  Gibcon  (Josh.  x.  14), 
and  in  all  the  victorious  conflicts  of  Joshua  (Josh.  x.  42, 
xxiii.  3).  He  it  was  who  really  chased  their  enemies  before 
them,  and  subdued  them  under  their  feet  (Judges  iv.  14,  15,  23 ; 
I  Sam.  vii.  10;  Ps.  xlvii.  4,  E.  V.  verse  3).  This  is  the  uni- 
form language  of  the  Psalms,  and  even  of  the  later  writers 
(2  Chron.  xx.  15,  17).  Hence  Jahaveh  is  called  "a  man  of 
war  "  (Exod.  xv.  3),  and   mention  is  made  of  his  sword,  his 

to  the  noun  in  the  const,  case,  or  when  the  first  noun  is  to  be  marked  as  indefinite, 
that  is,  as  wanting  the  article,  which  could  have  been  used  if  necessary,  nin''  DV 
might  mean  either  "a  day"  or  "the  day  of  Jahaveh,"  for  the  proper  name  is 
definite  in  itself,  while  nin  v  DV  is  purposely  indefinite,  so  far  as  the  object  of  the 
writer  is  concerned.      See  Ges.  §  115,  2. 


Ch.xiv.  1-3.]  "  THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.    457 

arrows  and  his  spear  (Deut.  xxxii.  40,  42  ;  Isa.  xxvii.  i, 
xxxiv.  5,  6  ;  Hab.  iii.  11).  Thus  the  expression  "as  in  a 
day  of  his  fighting,  1  in  a  day  of  war "  (verse  3),  may  be 
viewed  as  a  general  expression  (Kohler,  Keil,  Pressel,  etc.), 
or  regarded  as  having  special  reference  to  the  deliverance 
from  Egypt  (Targ.,  Jerome,  Corn,  a  Lapide,  Hengst.,  Ewald), 
which,  having  been  the  first  great  national  deliverance,  as 
well  as  the  greatest,  is  spoken  of  as  tJu  deliverance  par 
excellence,  as  Hengstenberg  remarks.     Comp.  Isa.  xi.  11. 

Jerusalem  is  not  mentioned  by  name  in  the  first  verse, 
though  clearly  indicated  by  the  use  of  the  pronoun  ("thy 
spoil ").  Zechariah  speaks  of  Jerusalem  as  already  captured 
by  the  foe  and  utterly  subjugated,  before  Jahaveh  interferes 
for  the  deliverance  of  his  people.  For  the  "  day  of  Jahaveh  " 
was  to  be  a  day  of  judgment,  exercised  in  the  first  case 
against  those  who  were  his  people ;  judgment  being  ever 
represented,  even  in  the  Old  Testament  writings,  as  com- 
mencing at  the  house  of  God  (i  Pet.  iv.  17;  Amos  iii.  2; 
Ezek.  ix.  6).  It  was  afterwards  to  be  a  day  of  executing 
vengeance  upon  their  enemies.  As  a  day  of  judgment  for 
all  it  is  strikingly  depicted  in  Isa.  ii.  11-19.  In  the  chapter 
before  us  the  sin  of  Israel  is  represented  as  causing  Jehovah  to 
wait  in  stillness  (comp.  Isa.  xxx.  17,  18)  until  a  fit  time  had 
come  to  deliver  them,  when  the  honour  of  the  victory  would 
be  ascribed  to  him  alone  (comp.  Jud.  vii.  2  ;  Deut.  viii.  17,  18). 

The  overthrow  of  Jerusalem  is  described  by  Zechariah  as 
so  complete,  that  the  enemy  is  able  in  perfect  security  to 
divide  the  booty  obtained  from  its  plunder  in  the  very  heart 

'  The  expression  1?0n^n  D"I\  the  day  of  his  fighting,  may  be  well  compared 
with  that  in  Ezek.  xxxix.  13,  "'l?3n  DV,  a  day  of  my  being  glorified.  A  day  in 
which  Jahaveh  goes  forth  to  fight  must  needs  be  a  day  in  which  his  glory  is 
revealed.  It  may  be  well  to  notice  here  that  DV  in  prophecies  of  the  future  is 
used  for  time  in  general,  (as  wpa  in  the  N.T.),  and  may  indicate  a  longer  or 
shorter  period,  as  may  be  required  by  the  events  spoken  of  in  the  particular 
prophecy. 


458  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   TROPHECIES.       [Ch.  xiv.  1-3. 

of  the  city  itself.^  The  plunder  of  a  captured  city,  as  Jerome 
remarks,  is  generally  divided  in  a  different  place  from  that 
in  which  it  has  been  gathered.  Hence  the  fact  of  the  enemy 
being  able  to  divide  the  spoil  in  the  midst  of  Jerusalem  points 
out  the  completeness  of  the  victory,  and  the  security  felt  by 
the  conquerors. 

The  second  verse  more  fully  explains  the  enigmatical  state- 
ment of  the  first.  Hence  the  construction  with  which  it 
begins  (the  perfect  with  the  vav  consecutive,  '•/IBDJ^I)-  The 
gathering  of  the  nations  by  Jahaveh,  mentioned  here,  can 
scarcely  be  regarded,  as  Kohler  thinks,  as  similar  to  the 
gathering  together  by  Jahaveh  of  Pharaoh  and  his  army  to 
pursue  after  Israel,  in  order  that  those  enemies  of  Israel  might 
be  overwhelmed  in  the  Red  Sea  (Exod.  xiv.  4,  17).  For  in 
that  case  the  Egyptians  were  permitted  merely  to  terrify  the 
people  of  God  for  a  short  period,  while  marching  on  to  their 
own  destruction  ;  they  were  unable  to  hurt  the  Israelites 
after  whom  they  pursued.  But  the  gathering  of  the  nations 
depicted  by  Zechariah  was  not  a  case  in  which  the  Lord 
gathered  together  his  enemies,  or  permitted  them  to  be 
gathered,  in  order  that  they  might  meet  the  doom  prepared 
for  them.  These  nations  were,  on  the  contrary,  gathered 
together  by  Jahaveh,  that,  as  man  is  generally  punished  by 
man,  they  might  be  the  instruments  in  the  hands  of  Jahaveh 
of  punishing  the  "sinful  nation,  a  nation  laden  with  iniquity" 
(Isa.  i.  4)  ;  although  after  having  thus  been  made,  like  Assyria 
and  Babylon,  the  means  of  executing  Jahaveh's  righteous  ven- 
geance, they,  for  their  own  sin,  would  fall  beneath  the  divine 
displeasure,  while  the  remnant  of  Israel  purified  by  trials  was 

^  It  is  clear  that  "thy  spoil"  cannot  signify  the  spoil  which  Jerusalem  had 
obtained  from  her  foes.  The  Targum,  indeed,  takes  this  view  of  the  passage  : 
"  Behold  a  day  is  about  to  come  from  before  the  Lord,  and  the  house  of  Israel 
shall  divide  the  substance  of  the  peoples  in  thy  midst,  O  Jerusalem."  Schlier 
seems  to  have  adopted  this  view  in  his  first  edition,  but  he  has  rightly  corrected 
it  in  his  second. 


Ch.xiv.  1-3.]  "THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.    459 

to  be  mightily  delivered  in  the  due  time.  The  gathering  of 
the  nations  (the  Medes  and  Persians)  by  Jahaveh  against 
Babylon,  which  was  predicted  by  Isaiah  (chap,  xiii.  3-5),  is  a 
more  suitable  parallel.  Israel  is  not  to  be  thought  of  as  a 
nation  already  converted  to  God  at  the  commencement  of  the 
era  here  so  graphically  described,  as  Kohler  imagines,  but  as 
a  nation  which  needed  a  heavy  chastisement,  and  upon  which 
the  day  of  Jahaveh  would  descend  in  vengeance,  even  though 
that  judgment  would  at  last  be  turned  into  mercy.  On 
the  other  hand  it  is  to  be  noted,  that  there  is  not  a  single  ■ 
\vord_in  this  chapter  concerning  Israel's  national  conversion. 
That  event  is  implied,  not  expressed.  Thus  the  picture  pre-  ' 
sented  is  not  like  that  portrayed  in  Revelation  xx.,  where  the 
nations  are  represented  as  indeed  permitted  to  encompass  the 
camp  of  the  saints  and  the  beloved  city,  but  not  to  overcome 
them,  for  fire  descends  from  God  out  of  heaven  and  devours 
their  adversaries  (Rev.  xx.  8,  9).  On  the  contrary,  in  Zech- 
ariah,  the  adversaries  are  described  as  being  completely  suc- 
cessful in  their  attempt — they  take  the  city,  they  violate  the 
women  who  are  found  therein,  they  divide  the  spoil  in  security, 
they  lead  forth  as  captives  the  half  of  the  people  that  re- 
mained over  and  above  (after  the  thousands  conceived  to  have 
perished  in  the  siege),  and  they  drag  the  captives  away  into 
exile,^  The  victory  of  the  enemies  is  complete  and  decisive, 
and  is  used  by  them  with  the  utmost  cruelty,  before  Jahaveh 

^  Reinke  translates  "go  forth  with  the  captives,"  or  "go  forth  as  prisoners, "  ex- 
plaining the  5  in  the  phrase  n?132  ^5^"'  as  used  pleonastically  after  a  verb  of  motion. 
He  translates  thus,  because  he  thinks  that  n?t5,  as  a  fem.  participial  noun,  can 
only  mean  captives  and  not  captivity.  But  H pfil  is  no  doubt  a  fem.  from  n.pjl  a  cap- 
tive ;  as  a  fem.  noun  it  is  used  first  in  an  abstract  signification,  captivity,  and  after- 
wards as  a  collective  term  for  the  captives  themselves.  See  Ewald,  Lehrb.  §  166  a. 
The  collective  signification  is  therefore  to  be  regarded  as  the  derived,  not  as  the  pri- 
mary meaning.  So  Miihlau  and  Volck  in  their  edition  of  Gesenius'  Lexicon.  Gesenius 
himself  in  his  earlier  editions,  as  well  as  in  his  Thesaurus,  and  Fiirst  have  assigned 
the  reverse  order.  At  any  rate  the  tisus  loqueiidi  proves  that  the  word  is  used  as 
an  abstract.  But  see  on  the  relation  of  collective  and  abstract  nouns,  Bottcher, 
Lehrb.,  §  643,  /3,  and  §  644. 


460  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  xiv.  1-3. 

comes  forth  for  the  deliverance  of  his  people.  The  violation 
of  the  women  is  specially  mentioned  as  showing  the  rage 
and  lust  of  the  adversaries  ;  such  brutality  is  alluded  to  as 
forming  one  of  the  most  cruel  but  most  ordinary  accompani- 
ments of  the  sack  of  cities  by  enraged  enemies  (Isa.  xiii.  16 ; 
Amos  vii.  17).  Though  a  remnant  is  delivered,  who  are  not 
cut  off  from  the  city,  yet  not  a  word  is  said  concerning  the 
rescue  of  the  captives  represented  as  having  fallen  into  the 
hands  of  the  foe.     These  points  must  all  be  borne  in  mind. 

It  is  impossible  to  regard  this  description  as  a  narrative  of 
actual  events,  or  to  conceive  that  all  the  nations  of  the  world 
are  to  be  literally  gathered  together  against  Jerusalem.  We 
might  indeed  interpret  that  phrase,  as  used  elsewhere,  to 
denote  simply  the  nations  round  about  the  Holy  Land.  But 
even  if  this  difficulty  were  thus  obviated,  many  of  the  other 
statements  can  only  be  explained  as  meant  in  a  figurative 
signification. 

The  prophecy  has  been  understood  by  some  of  the  Church 
Fathers,  as  Eusebius,  Cyrill,  and  Thedoret,  to  refer  directly 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans.  The 
objection  preferred  against  this  interpretation  is  of  little  force, 
namely,  that  the  prophet  according  to  it  passes  (in  vcr.  3) 
without  any  intimation  from  speaking  of  the  literal  Zion  to 
the  mystical  Zion.  For  in  both  places  the  literal  Jerusalem 
may,  even  on  this  interpretation,  be  signified  ;  the  Jerusalem 
for  whose  benefit  Jahaveh  is  represented  as  going  forth  to 
war,  being  most  clearly  the  godly  remnant  who  adhered  to 
the  truth  of  God,  and  who  are  not  cut  off  from  the  city. 

In  chap.  xiii.  g,  the  prophet  announced  that  a  third  part  of 
the  people  in  the  entire  land  would  be  preserved.  In  this 
chapter  he  speaks  of  half  of  those  shut  up  inside  the  city 
as  ultimately  forming  the  remnant  to  be  saved.  Verse  14 
also  speaks  of  a  remnant  of  Judah,  part  of  which  must  be 
conceived  as  outside  the  walls  of  the  city.     There  is  nothing 


Ch.xiv.  1-3.]  "THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.    461 

contradictory,  therefore,  in  the  two  statements  ;  for  while  the 
whole  nation  is  spoken  of  in  the  first,  that  part  of  the  people 
only  which  is  represented  as  shut  up  inside  the  city  is  referred 
to  in  the  other.  That  portion,  no  doubt,  in  some  sense 
formed  the  kernel  of  the  nation,  but  it  cannot  with  any  pro- 
priety be  regarded  as  the  whole.  Though  the  tribulation  of 
the  nation  culminates  in  the  capture  of  the  city,  the  language 
used  of  the  whole  nation  in  the  one  case  could  not  be 
suitably  used  in  reference  to  that  part  shut  up  inside  Jeru- 
salem. "The  half"  spoken  of  ver.  2,  is  the  half  of  the 
remnant  which  remains  ;  the  numbers  who  were  slain  are 
not  brought  into  the  computation.  Half  of  the  wretched 
remnant  of  the  survivors  is  represented  as  dragged  out  of  the 
city  into  slavery.  The  remaining  half,  not  cut  off  by  Divine 
vengeance  from  the  city,  is  to  be  conceived  as  collected 
together  into  one  miserable  mass,  in  expectation  of  a  similar 
fate,  when  the  earthquake  occurs  which  fills  them  indeed 
with  alarm,  but  affords  them  ultimately  a  means  of  escape  from 
the  city. 

Jerusalem,  in  this  prophecy  does  not  merely  signify  the ; 
city  itself,  but  the  holy  city  as  the  centre  of  the  national  life 
and  of  the  national  religion.     The  attack  on  Jerusalem  and 
the  sorrows  of  the  city  represent  the  sufferings  of  the  Jewish  1 
people  in  general  which  followed  their  rejection  of  the  Mes-  ' 
siah.     We,  therefore,  cannot  (with  Keil),  consider  the  state- 
ment that  the  remnant  would  not  be  cut  off  from  the  city,  as 
in  itself  decisive  against  the  reference  of  the  prophecy  to  the 
capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus,  the  culminating  sorrow  of  the 
great  Jewish  war.      The  statement  of  Zechariah  seems  no 
doubt  to  indicate  that  there  would  be  some  contrast  between 
the  capture  of  Jerusalem  which  he  predicted  and  the  taking 
of  that  city  by  the  Babylonians.     In  the  latter  case  the  entire 
remnant    "  that   were  left   in  the  city "  after  the  horrors  ot 
the  siege  were  carried  into  captivity  (2  Kings  xxv.  11),  and 


462  ZECHARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  xiv.  1-3. 

"the  remnant"  left  in  the  land,  who  might  have  prospered 
had  they  obeyed  the  commands  of  Jahaveh,  were  on  account 
of  disobedience  to  God's  commands  cut  off  from  the  city  of 
the  living  God,  and  from  his  gracious  protection,  by  the 
denunciations  uttered  by  Jeremiah,  which  were  so  terribly 
fulfilled  (Jer.  xliii.  15-18,  xliv.  12-14). 

For  the  expression  "shall  not  be  cut  off  from  the  city" 
appears  to  have  a  deeper  reference  than  is  generally  under- 
stood. It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  siege  which  the 
prophet  speaks  of  is  regarded  by  him  as  a  judgment  from 
the  Almighty,  Many  of  the  people  must  be  considered 
as  falling  in  the  siege  itself,  while  the  half  of  the  survivors 
at  its  close  are  described  as  going  forth  into  captivity.  All 
these  are  thought  of  as  cut  off  as  evil-doers  from  the  city  of 
the  Lord,  which  they  polluted  by  their  sins,  God's  sanctuary 
having  been  made  a  den  of  robbers  instead  of  a  place  of 
prayer.  The  captives  are  conceived  as  cast  forth  out  of  the 
sight  of  God's  presence  into  a  dry  and  thirsty  land  where  no 
water  is  (Ps.  Ixiii.  2).  Though  in  one  sense  the  people  of 
Jahaveh,  they  were  no  longer  reckoned  as  such  (Hos.  i.  9), 
they  were  cut  off  from  Israel.  The  Pentateuch  is  full  of 
such  expressions  as  "  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  Israel  " 
{bmiL^"l2  ^i'l^^  V^^n  nni^HX  Exod.  xii.  1 5) ;  or,  "  that  soul  shall 
be  cut  off  from  the  assembly  of  Israel  "  (Sj^lti;''  DiyD,  Exod. 
xii.  19);  or,  "from  his  people"  (rf^^L^D,  the  noun  li'DJ  being 
fern..  Lev.  vii.  20,  21);  or  even,  "cut  off  from  my  presence, 
I  am  the  Lord  "  (or,  "  from  before  me,  ''^S)7?p,  I  am  Jahaveh," 
Lev.  xxii.  3).  The  royal  Psalmist  expresses  in  one  of  the 
Psalms  his  determination,  in  the  day  when  Jahaveh  shall  take 
up  his  dwelling-place  in  Jerusalem,  "  every  morning,"  by  the 
exercise  of  righteous  judgment  to  "  destroy  the  wicked  of  the 
land,"  in  order  that  he  might  "  cut  off  all  workers  of  wicked- 
ness  from   the   city  of  Jahaveh,"  or  Jerusalem^  (Ps.  ci.  8) 

^  Sec  Dclitzsch  and  Pcrowne  on  tliis  Psalm. 


Ch.  xiv.  1-3.]  "  THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.    463 

The  dream  of  the  Psalmist  is  to  be  realized  in  all  its  fulness 
in  the  New  Jerusalem  (Rev.  xxi.  27) ;  and  Zechariah  in  this 
chapter,  in  predicting  the  great  events  which,  as  foretold  by 
another  prophet,  would  scatter  the  power  of  the  holy  people 
(Dan.  xii.  7),  speaks  of  the  half  of  the  "  remnant  "  that  should 
remain  after  such  judgments  shall  have  been  executed  as  not 
being  cut  off  from  the  holy  city.  In  other  words,  the  whole 
nation  would  not  be  cast  off  as  in  the  days  of  the  Babylonish 
captivity ;  there  would  be  "  a  remnant  according  to  the 
election  of  grace  "  (Rom.  xii,  5),  which  would  not  be  cast 
away  by  God,  even  in  that  terrible  day  when  he  would  visit 
Israel  for  their  sin. 

In  giving  this  interpretation  of  this  passage  we  coincide  in 
the  main  with  Reinke,  who  observes  that  the  cutting  off  from 
the  theocracy,  threatened  against  the  transgressors  of  the 
Law,  denoted  not  merely  the  death-penalty,  but  every  judg- 
ment whereby  any  one  was  removed  from  the  land  whose 
sacred  laws  he  had  refused  to  obey  (Ezra  vii.  26,  x.  18).  After 
that  judgment  had  been  laid  to  the  line  and  righteousness  to 
the  plummet  (Isa.  xxviii.  17),  a  certain  portion  of  the  people 
would  be  purified  thereby,  though  the  judgment  itself  might 
tend  rather  to  harden  others.  The  statement,  "  a  remnant 
shall  not  be  cut  off  from  the  city,"  must  denote  more  than 
simply  shall  not  be  driven  into  exile.  If  the  language  of  the 
Law,  which  in  this,  as  in  many  other  cases,  is  the  language 
of  the  Prophets,  did  not  define  the  sense  of  the  expression 
which  is  used,  we  might  naturally  think  that  the  prophet 
meant  something  like  that  recorded  as  the  result  of  judg- 
ments in  the  book  of  Revelation,  "the  remnant  were  affrighted 
and  gave  glory  to  the  God  of  heaven"  (chap.  Jii,  13) — a  pas- 
sage which  as  it  speaks  of  an  overthrow  of  a  tenth  part  of 
the  mystical  city,  of  an  earthquake,  and  a  rescue  of  the 
witnesses  of  Jesus,  may  be  regarded  as  based,  as  far  as  its 
imagery  is  concerned,  on  this  prophecy  of  Zechariah. 


464  ZECPIARIAII   AND   IIIS   PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  xiv.  1-3. 

Independently  of  the  parallel  in  Psalm  ci.,  to  which  atten- 
tion has  been  already  drawn,  there  exists  another  striking 
parallel,  which  Reinke  has  referred  to,  in  Isaiah  iv.  3.  In 
that  passage  Isaiah  speaks  of  the  day  which  was  coming 
when  the  ordinary  state  of  affairs  should  be  completely  al- 
tered ;  when  in  Jerusalem  persons  would  be  no  longer  classi- 
fied according  to  worldly  rank  and  position,  without  regard 
to  real  moral  worth,  but  when  each  member  of  the  remnant 
of  grace  (Rom.  xi.  5)  should  bear  the  glorious  name  of 
"  holy,"  or  "  saint,"  in  accordance  with  the  original  ideal  of 
the  people  of  God  (Exod.  xix.  6).  "  He  that  is  left  in  Zion 
(after  the  days  of  tribulation),  and  that  remains  in  Jerusalem, 
shall  be  called  holy,  every  one  that  is  enrolled  unto  life  in 
Jerusalem  "  (Isa.  iv.  3),  having  been  marked  on  the  forehead 
with  the  mark  of  God,  or  with  his  name  (Ezek.  ix.  4  ;  Rev. 
vii.  3,  xiv.  i),  "when  the  Lord  shall  have  washed  away  the 
filth  of  the  daughter  of  Zion,  and  purged  away  the  blood- 
guiltiness  of  Jerusalem  out  of  its  midst,  by  the  spirit  of  judg- 
ment and  by  the  spirit  of  burning  "  (Isa.  iv.  4),  namely,  by 
that  spirit  which  consumes  and  destroys  all  that  which  is  evil. 

This  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  as  well  as  that  under  considera- 
tion, refers  to  the  day  when  "  the  Branch  of  Jahaveh  shall  be 
beautiful  and  glorious  ; "  or,  in  other  words,  to  the  days  of 
the  Messianic  dispensation.  The  language  of  Isaiah  there- 
fore, may  properly  be  considered  as  casting  light  upon  that 
of  Zechariah. 

It  is  when  the  godless  have  thus  been  cut  off  from  the 
number  of  the  people  of  the  Lord,  and  when  the  judgment 
on  the  house  of  the  Lord  has  been  accomplished  by  the 
Gentiles,  who  are  permitted  to  tread  the  holy  city  under  foot 
(Rev.  xi.  2),  because  of  the  sin  of  the  professing  people  of 
God,  that  Jahaveh  is  described  as  going  forth  to  fight 
against'  those  nations.     The  expression   "to  go  forth"  {i^'^'') 

'  Tlic   LXX    have     here    incorrectly   rendered   Kal  Trapaxd^erai  tV  tois  iOv^civ 


Ch.xiv.i-4.]  "  THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.    465 

is  used  almost  technically  for  the  going  forth  of  an  army  to 
battle.  The  prophet  Isaiah  speaks  (chap.  xlii.  13)  of  Jahaveh 
going  forth  "as  a  hero,"  and  stirring  up  his  anger  "as  a 
man  of  war,"  when  he  "  goes  forth,"  as  in  the  great  day  of 
Israel's  deliverance  of  old,  "  for  the  salvation  "  of  his  people 
(Hab.  iii.  13).  A  suitable  parallel  also  occurs  in  Isaiah  (chap, 
xxvi.  20,  21) :  "  Go,  my  people,  into  thy  chambers,  and  shut 
thy  door  behind  thee,  hide  thyself  for  a  little  moment  until 
the  indignation  (the  judgment  righteously  executed  by  the 
Divine  anger)  be  overpast.  For  behold  Jahaveh  is  coming 
forth  (^^^^)  out  of  his  place  to  punish  the  iniquity  of  the 
dweller  on  earth  on  him,  and  the  earth  shall  disclose  her 
blood  (the  blood  shed  on  her),  and  no  more  cover  her  slain." 
That  is,  not  till  judgment  had  been  executed  upon  those 
who,  whatever  their  profession,  were  "  not  the  people  of  God," 
could  mercy  be  exhibited  to  the  remnant  which  had  been 
purified  in  the  days  of  affliction. 

Thus  Jerusalem,  which  as  apostate  is  regarded  by  the 
prophet  no  longer  as  the  holy  city,  and  as  consequently  given 
over  by  Jahaveh  as  a  booty  to  the  plunderers  (Isa.  xlii.  24), 
was  no  longer  a  place  in  which  Jahaveh  could  appear.  The 
hill  of  God  (Ps.  Ixviii.  16,  17,  E.  V.  15,  16)  was  to  be  given 
by  God's  own  decree  into  the  hands  of  his  enemies.  Hence 
Jahaveh  is  represented,  when  he  appears  to  help  the  remnant 

€Keii>ois,  "shall  fight  in  those  nations."  This  translation  wasone  of  the  reasons  why 
Theodoret  and  Cyrill  considered  the  prophecy  to  refer  to  the  destruction  of  Jeni- 
salem  by  the  Romans.  Theodoret  expressly  remarks,  irapara^eTai  dk  ovk  'lovSaiuv 
vTrepfiaxCi>v  dWa  kut''  e/ceiVwv  crpaTTjyCiv.  The  phrase  3  DH^J  generally  means  to 
/ig/tt  against,  whether  against  a  people  or  an  individual,  as  in  Exod.  i.  10, 
2  Chron.  xxxv.  22  (bis) ;  or  against  a  city,  Jud.  ix.  45,  i  Sam.  xxiii.  i,  2  Sam. 
xii.  27.  But  the  preposition  is  also  used  with  the  same  verb  to  indicate  the  place 
at  which  the  battle  occurs,  as  Exod.  xvii.  8,  "at  Rephidim  " ;  Jud.  v.  19,  "at 
Taanach";  2  Chron.  xxxv.  20,  22  ("  at  Carchemish,"  "in  the  valley  of  Megiddo  "), 
The  context  of  chap.  xiv.  14  proves  that  the  sentence  there  has  been  correctly 
rendered  by  the  LXX.,  /catToi)5as  Trapard^eTai  iv 'lepovaaX-fjix,  and  so  the  Syr., 
not  as  the  Vulg. ,  "  sed  et  Juda  pugnabit  adversus  Jerusalem."  See  our  remarks 
on  that  passage. 

H   H 


466  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   TROPHECIES.        [Cli.  xiv.  1-4. 

of  his  people,  as  standing  on  the  hill  opposite  to  Jerusalem, 
namely,  on  the  mount  of  Olives.  From  thence  he  would 
first  of  all  provide  a  place  of  safety  for  the  remnant  of  his 
people,  and  from  thence  he  would  afterwards  bring  low  the 
pride  of  their  cruel  foes. 

No  mention  is  made  in  this  prophecy  of  any  personal 
appearance  of  Jahaveh  in  glory  to  be  seen  by  all  those 
assembled  at  Jerusalem.  This  has  too  often  been  assumed 
as  a  fact  ;  but  the  incidents  related  by  the  prophet  are 
opposed  to  this  idea.  Such  an  appearance  is  inconsistent 
with  the  mention  afterwards  made  of  the  pestilence  which 
consumes  the  nations,  and  of  the  battle  renewed  at  or  in 
Jerusalem,  in  consequence  of  the  new  courage  inspired  into 
the  heart  of  the  men  of  Judah  (verse  14)  by  reason  of  the 
return  of  him  who  of  old  was  the  captain  of  his  army 
{Josh.  V.  14).  The  advent  of  Jahaveh  was  to  be  a  real 
coming,  but  not  such  an  appearance  in  glory  as  would  strike 
terror  at  once  into  the  foe.  He  would  come  in  other  guise, 
but  not  less  truly,  to  bring  redemption  to  his  people,  and  to 
lead  them  like  a  flock  by  his  own  hand,  and  not  by  that  of 
another ;  and  as  the  God  that  doeth  wonders  and  yet  hideth 
himself  (Isa.  xlv.  15),  he  would  appear  as  the  God  of  Israel, 
the  Saviour,  with  his  mighty  arm  to  redeem  his  people  the 
sons  of  Jacob  and  Joseph  (Ps.  Ixxvii.  14-20). 

The  thought,  then,  of  the  passage  seems  to  be  :  Jahaveh 
would  appear  not  in  Jerusalem,  conceived  as  profaned  by  the 
feet  of  the  uncircumcised,  but  on  that  mountain  which  had  in 
itself  no  claim  to  be  regarded  as  holy,  but  rather  the  reverse. 
The  false  and  unreal  sanctity  would  vanish,  Jerusalem  once 
holy  would  be  regarded  as  unholy,  while  the  mount  formerly 
so  unholy  and  unclean,  where  temples  had  been  erected  by 
Solomon  to  the  false  gods  of  the  heathen,  would  be  the  very 
spot  where  Jahaveh  would  choose  to  reveal  himself  Tlic 
glory  of  Jahaveh,  which  for  a  time  was  not  to  be  manifested 


Ch.xiv.4.]    "THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.       46/ 

in  the  once  holy  city,  is  depicted  as  standing  on  the  mountain 
on  the  east  of  the  city,  namely,  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  (Ezek. 
xi.  23). 

"  The  lasting  glory  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,"  writes  Dean 
Stanley,  and  his  words  may  perhaps  suitably  be  introduced 
here,  "  belongs  not  to  the  Old  Dispensation  but  to  the  New. 
Its  veiy  barrenness  of  interest  in  earlier  times  sets  forth  the 
abundance  of  those  associations  which  it  derives  from  the 
closing  scenes  of  the  sacred  history.  Nothing,  perhaps, 
brings  before  us  more  strikingly  the  contrast  of  Jewish  and 
Christian  feeling,  the  abrupt  and  inharmonious  termination 
of  the  Jewish  dispensation  [spoken  of  by  Zechariah  in  this 
prophecy] — if  we  exclude  the  culminating  point  of  the  Gos- 
pel history — than  to  contrast  the  blank  which  Olivet  presents 
to  the  Jewish  pilgrims  of  the  middle  ages,  only  dignified  by 
the  sacrifice  of  '  the  red  heifer '  ;  and  the  vision  too  great  for 
words,  which  it  offers  to  the  Christian  traveller  of  all  times, 
as  the  most  detailed  and  the  most  authentic  abiding-place  of 
Jesus  Christ.  By  one  of  those  strange  coincidences,  whether 
accidental  or  borrowed,  which  occasionally  appear  in  the 
Rabbinical  writings,  it  is  said  in  the  Midrash,  [in  the  Midrash 
TeJiillim,  as  a  saying  of  Rabbi  Jannai,  cited  by  Lightfoot, 
Cent.  CJiorograpJi.  Matt,  prcevi.,  cap.  xl..  Opera,  tom.  ii.,  p.  201] 
that  the  Shechinah,  or  Presence  of  God,  after  having  finally 
retired  from  Jerusalem,  '  dwelt '  three  years  and  a  half  on  the 
Mount  of  Olives,  to  see  whether  the  Jewish  people  would  or 
would  not  repent,  calling,  '  Return  to  me,  O  my  sons,  and  I 
will  return  to  you '  ;  '  Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  He  may  be 
found,  call  upon  Him  while  He  is  near ' ;  and  when  all  was 
in  vain  returned  to  its  own  place.  Whether  or  not  this  story 
has  a  direct  allusion  to  the  ministrations  of  Christ,  it  is  a 
true  expression  of  his  relation  respectively  to  Jerusalem  and 
to  Olivet.  It  is  useless  to  seek  for  traces  of  his  presence  in 
the  streets  of  the  since  ten  times  captured   city.     It  is  im- 


468  ZECHARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiv.  4. 

possible  not  to  find  them  in  the  free  space  of  the  Mount  of 
Olives."  ^ 

The  Mount  of  Olives  had  often  been  a  source  of  evil  to 
Jerusalem.  From  its  heights  the  enemy  was  oftch  wont  to 
count  the  towers  (Isa.  xxxiii.  18)  of  the  city,  in  order  to 
devise  a  plan  of  levelling  them  with  the  dust.  But  the  point 
of  danger  was  to  be  the  place  whence  help  should  come. 
That  mountain  was  also  the  most  serious  impediment  in 
the  way  of  a  rapid  escape  out  of  Jerusalem.  It  had  been  a 
hindrance  in  David's  path  when  he  fled  from  the  face  of  his 
rebellious  son  (2  Sam.  xv.  30).  But  the  descent  of  Jahaveh 
on  that  mountain  would  make  it  to  be  no  longer  a  hin- 
drance, but  would  convert  the  very  obstacle  itself  into  a  way 
of  escape. 

When  Jahaveh  came  down  on  Mount  Sinai  to  announce  his 
law  to  Israel,  his  appearance  was  accompanied  with  an  earth- 
quake, "the  mount  quaked  greatly"  {Exod.  xix.  18).  When 
David  describes  poetically  the  manifestations  of  Jahaveh  to 
deliver  his  poor  hunted  soul  from  the  hand  of  Saul,  he  too 
speaks  of  lightnings,  thundcrings,  and  a  mighty  earthquake 
whereby  even  the  foundations  of  the  earth  were  disclosed,  as 
suitable  accompaniments  of  the  Lord's  appearance  for  his 
rescue  (Ps.  xviii.  8,  16  ;  h^V.  verses  7,  15).  When  the  story 
of  Elijah's  meeting  with  God  on  Mount  Horcb  is  related, 
mention  is  made  of  the  same  accompaniment  of  a  great 
and  strong  wind  that  rent  the  mountains,  of  an  earthquake, 
and  of  flashes  of  fire,  preceding  the  still  small  voice  of  God 
(i  Kings  xix.  11,  12).  Deborah,  in  her  triumphal  song,  refers 
to  the  earthquake  on  Mount  Sinai,  whereby  the  earth  trem- 
bled and  the  mountains  were  melted  (Jud.  v.  4,  5).  When 
the  Psalmist  bursts  forth  in  praises  of  the  appearance  of  God 
in  the  sanctuary  where  the  ark  of  the  covenant  was  placed, 
he   too  recalls  to  mind  the  wondrous  phenomena  of  nature 

'  Stanley's  "  Sinai  and  Palestine,"  p.  1S9. 


Ch.xiv.4.]     "THE  LAST  things"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.      469 

which  attended  the  manifestation  of  the  glory  of  the  Most 
High  in  other  days  (Ps.  Ixviii.).  And  when  amid  the 
gathering  gloom  of  a  day  of  affliction,  which  he  perceived 
rapidly  approaching,  Habakkuk  thinks  of  God's  past  de- 
liverances of  his  people,  that  prophet  recounts  not  merely 
the  deliverance  at  the  Red  Sea,  but  again  speaks  of  the 
glorious  manifestation  at  Sinai  with  its  accompanying  earth- 
quake (Hab.  iii.  6,  10).  When  Nahum  describes  Jahaveh's 
going  forth  to  judgment  against  Nineveh,  he  too  remembers 
the  mighty  acts  of  the  Lord,  and  speaks  of  mountains 
quaking,  rocks  rent,  hills  melting,  and  the  earth  itself  being 
burned  (Nah.  i.  5,  6).  The  mighty  earthquake  which  took 
place  at  the  crucifixion  of  our  Lord,  whereby  the  rocks  were 
rent  and  the  graves  opened  (Matt,  xxvii.  51,  52),  and  the 
similar  phenomena  manifested  at  his  Resurrection  (Matt, 
xxviii.  2)  may  also  be  noticed  here. 

In  accordance,  therefore,  with  the  Old  Test,  representations, 
and  with  the  imagery  used  by  psalmists  and  prophets, 
Zechariah,  when  describing  Jahaveh's  coming  forth  for  the 
salvation  of  his  people,  "  to  still  the  enemy  and  the  avenger  " 
(Ps.  viii.  3,  E.  V.  verse  2),  speaks  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  as 
split  to  its  very  centre  by  an  earthquake,  beneath  the  feet 
of  the  Mighty  One  of  Jacob.^  Nor  can  it  be  forgotten  that 
when  Isaiah  speaks  of  an  earlier  siege  of  Jerusalem,  which 
he  designates  as  Ariel  (which  probably  means  the  "  Altar  of 
God,"  Jerusalem  being  under  the   Levitical  dispensation  the 

*  The  notion  of  Hitzig  that  the  mountain  is  represented  as  splitting  asunder 
from  the  weight  of  God  is  an  idea  utterly  at  variance  with  all  the  representations 
of  the  prophets  of  Israel.  Grotius,  referring  the  whole  prophecy  to  the  attack  on 
Jerusalem  in  the  days  of  the  Maccabees,  strangely  explains  the  fourth  verse  as 
having  reference  to  the  feet  of  Bacchides,  one  of  the  most  skilful  generals  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes.  He  remarks  that  the  person  referred  to  is  often  to  be 
gathered  from  the  sense  of  the  passage  ;  but  his  notion  has  been  justly  rejected 
by  all  other  expositors.  The  connexion  of  verse  4  with  the  preceding  verse 
renders  it  almost  impossible  to  refer  the  pronoun  to  any  other  than  Jahaveh 
himself. 


4/0  ZECHARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiv.  4. 

only  lawful  place  for  sacrifice),  the  prophet  depicts  both  the 
deep  humiliation  of  that  city  and  its  wonderful  deliverance, 
the  might  of  the  king  of  Assyria  being  shattered  before  its 
walls  ;  and  describes  the  holy  city  as  destined  to  be  visited 
by  thunder  and  earthquake  and  by  a  great  storm  and  tempest 
and  the  flame  of  a  devouring  fire  (Isa.  xxix.  6).  For  as 
Haggai  speaks  of  an  earthquake  accompanying  the  shaking 
of  the  nations  (Hag.  ii.  6,  7),  so  Ezekiel  represents  the  de- 
struction of  Gog  as  brought  about  in  a  similar  way  (Ezek. 
xxxviii.  19-22).  Such  language  is  too  often  made  use  of  by 
the  prophets  in  a  figurative  signification  to  be  regarded  as 
necessarily,  or  even  probably,  literal. 

The  name  Mount  of  Olives  is  mentioned  only  here  in  the 
Old  Test,  writings.  The  hill  is  elsewhere  called  "  the  ascent 
of  the  Olives"  (2  Sam.  xv.  30),  where  our  A.  V.  incorrectly 
renders  it  "  the  ascent  of  Mount  Olivet,"  though  it  indicates 
by  the  use  of  italics  that  the  word  "  mount ''  is  not  in  the 
original.  It  is  called  "the  mountain"  in  Nch.  viii.  15,  where 
it  is  spoken  of  as  abounding  with  olives,  oleasters,  myrtles, 
palm  trees,  and  other  kind  of  trees.  In  i  Kings  xi.  7  it  is 
noticed  as  "  the  hill  that  is  before  Jerusalem  ;"  in  2  Kings 
xxiii.  13  as  "  the  mount  of  corruption"  (see  note  2  on  p.  473), 
and  in  Ezek.  xi.  23  as  "  the  hill"  or  "  mountain  which  is  on  the 
east  side  of  the  city."  The  term  used  here,  "  the  mountain  of 
the  olives,"  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  proper  name,  but  as  an 
appellation  by  which  that  hill  w^as  distinguished  from  others 
as  specially  noted  for  its  olive  trees.  Hence  the  description 
of  its  locality  given  in  Ezekiel  is  also  added  here,  namely, 
"  which  is  before  Jerusalem  on  the  east."  Kohler  considers 
the  expression  to  suggest  the  thought  that  as  the  rising  sun, 
when  seen  from  Jerusalem,  first  appeared  over  the  Mount  of 
Olives,  so  deliverance  should  come  from  thence,  and  the  Sun 
of  Righteousness  there  arise  with  healing  in  his  beams  (Mai. 
iv.  2),  to  chase  away  the  darkness  resting  over  Jerusalem.    He 


Ch.xiv.4.]    "THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.      47I 

observes  that  the  glory  of  the  Lord  is  represented  in  the 
prophet  Ezekiel  as  coming  from  the  way  of  the  east  to 
Jerusalem,  and  deliverance  as  arising  from  that  quarter 
(chap,  xliii.  2,  xliv.  i,  2). 

However  that  may  be,  the  passage  seems  distinctly  to 
indicate  that  what  might  have  been  expected  to  prove 
the  great  obstacle  in  the  way  of  an  escape  from  Jerusalem, 
should  become  the  very  means  whereby  "  the  remnant" 
should  be  delivered  out  of  the  hands  of  their  oppressors. 
The  mountain  which  stood  in  their  path  should  be  removed. 
It  should  be  split  by  the  earthquake  in  twain,  from  its  very 
centre,^  into  two  equal  parts.  As  the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea 
had  been  divided,  and  that  sea  in  the  path  of  Israel  proved  a 
means  of  refuge  instead  of  a  place  of  destruction,  so  Divine 
power  would  create  a  valley  through  the  .very  midst  of  the 
Mount  of  Olives,  so  that  the  mountain  would  prove  not 
indeed  a  place  of  refuge,  but  a  road  to  a  place  of  security. 

For  the  chasm  in  the  mountain  was  to  be  formed  so  as  to 
be  opposite  to  Jerusalem  on  the  east,  and  to  afford  a  safe  and 
wide  valley  with  lofty  and  precipitous  sides.  The  one  part  of 
the  mountain  was  to  move  towards  the  north,  and  the  other 
towards  the  south,  and  there  would  be  a  very  great  valley 
between  them.  The  rocky  heights  on  both  sides  of  the 
valley  are  termed  "  mountains,"  and  inasmuch  as  they  were 
formed  specially  by  Jahaveh,  the  valley  is  not  only  spoken 
of  generally  as  "  a  valley  of  mountains,"  but  also  as  "  the 
valley  of  my  mountains."^      The    idea  of  Jerome  and    the 

^  1''VnP  "  from  its  middle."  Compare  Joshua  x.  23,  "in  the  middle  of  the 
heavens  (D^D^H  "•VHIl),"  or  Psalm  cii.  24  (verse  25  E.  V.),  "in  the  midst  of  my 
days." 

2  The  omission  of  the  article  in  D'''in"\3  ought  to  be  noticed.  The  article  could 
not  gi-ammatically  be  used  with  the  other  expressions  '''!!n"i<''3,  but  it  must  be 
understood,  for  the  genitive  is  defined  by  the  suffix  and  the  noun  governing  it  in 
the  construct  state  cannot  have  the  article.  See  Ges.  §  no,  2.  The  valley  thus 
referred  to  is,  of  course,  to  be  regarded  as  identical  with  "the  valley  of  my  moun- 
tains."    "  The  valley  of  my  mountains  "  has  been  understood  by  Jerome,  Drusius, 


4/2  ZECIIARIAII    AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  xiv.  4,  5. 

Church  Fathers  that  the  mountain  was  to  be  twice  divided, 
first  lengthways  from  north  to  south,  and  then  again  in  its 
breadth  from  east  to  west,  is  not  supported  by  the  language 
of  the  prophecy. 

The  valley  is  not  to  be  viewed,  as  Schegg,  Ewald,  and 
others  regard  it,  as  the  place  of  refuge  for  the  people  of  God 
while  God's  judgments  are  being  executed  on  the  heathen. 
It  is  to  be  viewed  rather  as  an  open  road  into  which  the 
people  flee  in  terror  with  some  hope  of  attaining  a  place  of 
refuge.  Schegg  asks  why  a  miracle  should  be  wrought  to 
accomplish  such  an  object.^  Why  should  the  fugitives  not 
rather  be  represented  as  fleeing  by  the  way  towards  the 
south,  where  no  mountain  would  stand  in  their  road  .''  But 
he  has  forgotten,  with  Reinke  and  others,  the  sharp  declivities 
of  Zion  which  exist  on  the  southern  side.  Hengstenberg 
is  no  doubt  correct  when  he  says  that  "it  is  very  obvious 
that  the  whole  account  is  figurative,  and  that  the  fundamental 
idea,  the  rescue  of  believers  and  the  destruction  of  their 
enemies  is  clothed  in  drapery  borrowed  from  the  local  cir- 
cumstances of  Jerusalem." 

The  idea  that  our  Lord  will  appear  at  his  second  advent 
on  the  Mount  of  Olives  is  founded  on  this  passage  and  that 
in    Joel   iv.   2.     Neither  passage,  when    understood    in    con- 

Venema,  and  later  by  von  Hofmann,  to  mean  the  valley  of  the  Tyropoeon,  between 
Moriah  and  Zion,  which,  tenninating  at  the  Mount  of  Olives,  might  be  supposed 
to  lead  into  the  valley  opened  by  the  earth(|uake,  and  to  be  the  road  whereby  the 
fugitives  would  seek  to  gain  an  entrance  to  that  valley.  But  "  my  mountains  "  can- 
not well  designate  Zion  and  Moriah.  Only  one  mountain,  as  Kohler  justly  observes, 
is  spoken  of  in  the  Old  Test,  as  the  mount  chosen  by  God,  and  that  is  either  desig- 
nated distinctly  as  Moriah,  on  which  the  temple  stood  (2  Chron.  iii.  l),or  as  Mount 
Zion,  which  more  often  signifies  the  entire  of  the  heights  on  which  Jerusalem  was 
built,  including  therefore  Moriah,  which  was  the  special  temple  mountain  (Ps.  xlviii. 
2,  3,  12,  E.V.  verses  i,  2,  11  ;  Ps.  Ixviii.  16,  17,  E.V.  15,  16;  Isa.  Iv.  7).  These 
two  mountains  are  never  contrasted  with  one  another  in  the  Old  Testament.  In 
later  times  such  a  contrast  is  spoken  of,  and  Moriah  is  termed  by  Josephus  "  the 
Mount  of  the  Lord."  The  expression  "  my  mountains  "  is  found  in  the  prophets 
as  a  general  designation  of  all  the  mountains  of  Israel  (Isaiah  Ixv.  9  ;  Ezek. 
xxxviii.  21). 


Ch.  xiv.  5.]    "  THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.      473 

nexion  with  its  context,  gives  the  shghtest  support  to  the  tra- 
ditional view,  and  our  Lord's  own  statement,  in  Luke  xvii.  24,  1 
is  rather  opposed  to  the  idea.     It  need  scarcely  be  remarked 
that  the  words  of  the  angels,  recorded  in  Acts  i.  10,  11,  give; 
also  no  countenance  to  this  supposition. 

The  remnant  that  escape  of  Israel,  and  are  not  cut  off  in 
the  iniquity  of  the  nation,  are  represented  as  fleeing  into  the 
valley  providentially  opened  by  the  gracious  interference  of 
the  Most  High.  "  And  ye  shall  flee,"  writes  the  prophet, 
"  to  the  valley  of  my  mountains,  for  a  valley  of  mountains 
(a  mountain-valley,  shut  in  by  mountains  on  both  sides)  shall 
extend  very  near,  and  ye  shall  flee  as  ye  fled  from  before  the 
earthquake  in  the  days  of  Uzziah  king  of  Judah  ;  and  Ja- 
haveh  my  God  shall  come,  all  the  holy  ones  with  thee  !  "  The 
translation,  "  into  the  valley,"  given  by  Kohler  and  others,  is 
more  natural  than  that  advocated  by  Maurer  and  Hitzig, 
"ye  shall  flee  through  the  valley  of  my  mountains,"  although 
2  Sam.  ii.  29 ;  Job  xxii.  14,  etc.,  are  instances  in  which  the 
accusative  of  place  is  used  in  that  signification.^  In  a  later 
part  of  the  prophecy  the  fugitives  are  represented  as  taking 
heart,  and  returning  again  to  the  battle  (verse  14).  The 
picture  presented  here  is  scarcely  that  given  by  Ewald  that 
the  refugees  are  described  as  flying  into  the  valley  "  to  the 
feet  of  the  Almighty,  and  as  under  his  protection."  If  such 
were  the  meaning  a  fuller  description  would  have  been 
afforded.- 

^  The  translation  given  by  Luther,  "  vor  solchem  Thai,"  on  accomit  of  (lit. 
before)  such  a  valley,  adopted  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Schmieder,  does  not  afford 
a  good  sense  when  taken  in  connexion  with  the  context,  and  would  require,  as 
Kohler  observes,  'n"i5\5"''JEp. 

2  Hitzig  considers  that  the  writer  refers  to  the  opening  of  the  Mount  of  Olives 
during  the  earthquake  in  the  days  of  Uzziah,  and  thinks  that  the  three  summits  of 
the  Mount  of  Olives  probably  date  from  that  time.  He  considers,  too,  that  the  name 
given  to  that  mountain  in  2  Kings  xxiii.  13,  namely  "the  Mount  of  Corruption," 
or  '■  of  destruction,"  (^''^E^'D)  refers  to  some  volcanic  action  whereby  some  deso- 
la.ion  was  wrought.     Jer.  li.  25  is  in  his  opinion  another  illustration  of  this  fact. 


474  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiv.  5. 

The  reason  why  the  fugitives  in  their  terror  should  flee 
in  that  direction  is  given  in  the  next  clause,  whatever  may- 
be regarded  as  its  correct  meaning.  That  clause  has  been 
variously  understood.  Some  translate  it  "  for  a  mountain- 
valley  shall  extend  to  Azal,"  which  is  supposed  to  be  a  place 
near  to  Jerusalem,  or  a  part  of  Jerusalem  itself,  close  to  the 
spot  where  the  remnant  who  were  "  not  cut  off  from  the 
city  "  are  conceived  as  collected  together.  Azal  is  by  others 
regarded  as  a  place  on  the  slopes  of  the  Mount  of  Olives 
farthest  off  from  Jerusalem  ;  and  lastly  the  clause  can  be 
rendered,  "  for  a  valley  of  mountains  shall  extend  hard-by," 
or  "  very  near." 

Whatever  view  of  the  word  in  question  be  adopted,  the 
verse  clearly  states  that  the  opening  of  the  valley  through 
the  Mount  of  Olives  is  the  cause  of  the  flight,  as  that  valley 
presents  an  opportunity  of  escape  to  the  terrified  "  rem- 
nant." Their  terror  is  not,  however,  caused  by  any  dread 
lest  they  as  well  as  their  foes  should  be  swallowed  up  in  the 
chasm  caused  by  the  earthquake  (Hengstenbcrg).  For  while 
the  passage  docs  not  speak  of  the  enemies  being  swallowed 
up  in  the  chasm,  it  was  evidently  the  intention  of  the  prophet 
to  depict  the  fugitives  from  Jerusalem  as  actually  rushing 
into  it.  Nor  need  we  suppose  that  the  enemies  are  repre- 
sented as  merely  passive  (Hengstenbcrg).  Blind  rage  might 
lead  them  to  pursue  into  the  very  valley  those  who  were  flee- 
ing before  them,  as  the  Egyptians  pursued  after  the  Israelites 
even  into  the  bed  of  the  Red  Sea.  But  this  is  not  stated,  nor 
does  it  agree  with  what  is  described  at  the  end  of  the  chapter. 
For  the  foe  there  is  represented  as  ultimately  destroyed  first 
by  pestilence  as  the  sword  of  Jahaveh,  and  secondly  in  war 
by   the   sword    of    the    Lord's    people.      Zechariah    merely 

But  in  2  Kings  the  reference  is  r.itlier  to  the  desolation  brought  about  by  idolatiy, 
and  in  Jeremiah  to  the  desolations  caused  by  Babylon  in  the  world.  In  ncilJier 
place  does  any  reference  whatever  seem  to  be  made  to  volcanic  action. 


Ch.xiv.4,  S-]  "  THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.    475 

says  that  the  terror  occasioned  by  the  earthqualce,  for  an 
earthquake  is  plainly  supposed  to  take  place,  and  that 
caused  probably  by  reason  of  the  cruelty  of  the  foe,  should 
compel  the  remnant  to  flee  out  of  Jerusalem  into  the  valley 
provided  for  them,  as  the  Jews  had  fled  before  the  earth- 
quake in  the  days  of  Uzziah.  Jerusalem  in  this  passage  is 
represented  as  a  place  of  danger  whence  the  remnant  would 
gladly  seek  to  escape.  And  not  till  they  reach  a  place  of 
safety,  and  are  secure  as  Noah  in  the  ark,  or  Lot  in  Zoar, 
are  the  judgments  of  God  to  descend  like  an  overwhelming 
flood  upon  their  oppressors.  The  escape  of  the  remnant  out 
of  the  city  is,  therefore,  a  certain  presage  of  the  ruin  of  their 
enemies  (Gen.  xix.  22). 

The  reading  of  the  Oriental  Jews  in  the  fourth  verse,  in 
place  of  "And  ye  shall  flee  (Dnp^l)  to  the  valley  of  my 
mountains,"  is  "and  the  valley  of  my  mountains  shall 
be  stopped  up  (D^ID^'I)."  This  reading  is  found  in  four  MSS., 
the  Targum,  LXX.,  Symm.,  Syr.-Hex.  (but  not  the  Syr.),  and 
several  of  the  Jewish  commentators.  It  does  not,  however, 
afford  a  good  sense,  as  it  can  scarcely  mean,  as  Kimchi  has 
explained  it,  "that  after  the  cleaving  open  of  the  Mount  of 
Olives  it  will  be  .shut  again,  an  hour  or  hours,  a  day  or  days 
after,  and  thus  the  miracle  will  be  so  much  the  greater,  that 
it  should  be  shut  after  splitting  open  ;  for  in  common  earth- 
quakes, by  which  the  earth  is  split  open,  it  does  not  close 
again." 

The  valley  thus  miraculously  opened  was  to  extend  very 
"near"  or  "hard  by"  the  place  in  Jerusalem  where  we  may 
suppose  the  remnant  that  had  hitherto  escaped  were  col- 
lected. The  word  which  we  render  as  a  preposition  has 
generally  been  understood  as  a  proper  name.  It  is  so  ren- 
dered not  only  by  the  LXX.  and  Targ.,  but  by  many  recent 
critics,  as  Gesenius  (both  in  his  Thesaurus  and  in  his  Lexicoji), 
Maurer,    Umbreit,   Ewald,   Hengstenberg,  etc.     Ewald    con- 


476  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiv-S. 

siders  Azal  to  be  a  place  at  the  western  end  of  the  moun- 
tain on  which  the  temple  stood,  a  sense  which  would  suit  the 
passage  remarkably  well.  This  opinion,  however,  is  purely- 
conjectural.  Others  think  that  there  was  a  place  called  Azal 
on  the  other  side  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  farthest  off  from 
Jerusalem.  No  such  place  is  known  to  have  existed. 
Cyrill,  who  is  the  only  Church  Father  who  mentions  it, 
docs  so  from  hearsay.  He  states  that  it  was  a  village 
lying  at  the  remotest  part  of  the  mountain.  His  words  are : 
Kco/jiTj  8e  avTT)  7rpo9  ecr^arLat'i,  o)?  X6yo<;,  rov  6pov<;  KeLfievr]. 
Jerome  would  certainly  have  mentioned  such  a  village,  in  his 
commentary  on  this  passage,  had  he  been  acquainted  with  it ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  he  has  deliberately  rejected  the  opinion 
that  the  word  is  a  proper  name,  though  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  that  would  be  the  easiest  interpretation.  Dr.  Pusey  has 
suggested  that  a  village  of  the  name  of  Azal  may  have  been 
among  those  destroyed  in  the  Roman  war  after  the  revolt  of 
Bar  Kokhab.  For  in  that  war,  Dion  Cassius  states  (Ixix.  14) 
that  no  less  than  nine  hundred  and  eighty-five  very  well 
known  villages  were  destroyed.  Hengstenberg,  Rcinke, 
Kliefoth,  and  Keil,  regarding  the  noun  as  a  proper  name, 
have  considered  it  identical  with  Beth-haezel  ("^iiNin  J1^2) 
in  Micah  i.  11,  the  Beth  prefixed  to  such  names  being  fre- 
quently dropped.  But  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  the  place 
referred  to  by  Micah  was  nigh  to  Jerusalem,  the  passage  of 
that  prophet  being  in  itself  obscure.^ 

^  Lieut  Claude  R.  Condcr,  R.E.,  who  has  achieved  so  nnicli  in  tlie  recent  ex- 
plorations of  Palestine,  has  informed  me  that  Azal  is  a  place  not  known,  but  that 
M.  Clermont-Ganneau  has  suggested  that  it  may  be  the  present  Wady  Asfil  or 
Yasul,  an  affluent  of  the  Kedron.  Lieut.  Conder  notes,  however,  that  the  names  are 
not  very  similar,  and  no  ruin  exists  to  which  the  name  applies.  The  LXX.  have 
expressed  the  word  by  'Io(ri55,  or  more  correctly,  as  in  the  cod.  Alex,  and  other  MSS. 
'Ao-arjX,  the  capitals  A  and  A  having  no  doubt  been  confused.  The  latter  is  the 
reading  of  the  .Syr.-IIex.,  Aq.  'AcrA,  Theod.  'Aff^\.   The  Syr.  translates  "  for  the 

PC      •> 

valley    of  the    mountains    siiall    extend    |i    \o|l,  io   nurrinci/ifss,"  that   is  "lo 
a  narrow  place '^  Symm.  7r/)6s  rh  rrapaKtljj.ei'ov.     The  Vulg.  translates  "quoniam 


Ch.xiv.S.]  "THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.       477 

The  earthquake  which  occurred  in  the  reign  of  Uzziah  is 
not  mentioned  in  the  historical  books.  The  account  given  of 
it  by  Josephus  {Antig.  ix.  10,  §  4)  cannot  be  considered  as 
historical.  According  to  him,  this  earthquake  occurred  at 
the  time  that  Uzziah  went  into  the  temple  of  the  Lord  to 
offer  incense  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  16-21),  and  at  the  very  time 
when  the  priests  were  trying  to  prevent  the  king  from  com- 
mitting such  a  daring  violation  of  the  law  of  Moses.  The 
words  of  Josephus  are,  "  in  the  meanwhile  a  great  earthquake 

conjungetur  vallis  montium  usque  ad  proximum,"  which  is  explained  by  Jerome, 
"quia  vallis  ilia  montis  Oliveti  .  ,  .  usque  ad  Templi  montem  qui 
sanctus  est,  suam  voraginem  trahet  .  .  .  et  quoniam  vorago  ilia  .  .  . 
tendetur  usque  ad  Asael,  h.  e.  usque  ad  Domum  Dei."  Tremellius  and  Junius 
translate,  "turn  fugientes  vallem  montium  quum  [Deus  veniens]  pertinget  vallem 
montium,  ad  (montem  contendetis  quem)  elegit,"  the  words  in  parentheses  being 
supplied.  Cocceius,  adopting  a  similar  translation,  considers  the  reference  to  be 
to  the  refuge  which  God  had  selected.  Similarly  the  marg.  rend,  of  our  E.  V., 
"when  he  shall  touch  the  valley  of  the  mountains  to  the  place  he  separated."  The 
verb  ?V^  might,  if  no  other  translation  were  possible,  be  so  explained  (compare  the 
proper  name  ■liT'^^V^  in  i  Chron.  xxxiv.  8,  and  the  construction  be  justified  by  an 
appeal  to  1'?  ''n'iJ''Dn"7N  in  i  Chron.  xv.  12.  But  that  translation  rests  on  the 
mistaken  view  that  the  people  were  to  flee  from  the  valley  formed  by  the  earth- 
quake, instead  of  into  that  very  valley,  which  is  the  simple  meaning  of  the 
passage.  The  second  clause,  also,  cannot  refer  to  Jahaveh.  Other  scholars,  as 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  Hezel,  Theiner,  have  considered  ?VX  to  be  used,  in  the  sense  of 
the  Arabic  equivalent,  of  the  roots  or  foot  of  the  mountain,  but  as  the  valley  was  to 
run  right  through  the  mountain,  the  clause  would  have  no  definite  meaning.  7VX 
is  the  pausal  form  of  7^^,  which  is  generally  used  in  the  construct  state  ?)>$;{  • 
the  latter  form  is  once  found  in  the  absolute  state,  and  as  a  proper  name  in  Micah 
i.  1 1,  referred  to  above.  The  word  in  the  construct  state  is  often  used  as  a  prepo- 
sition, denoting  beside,  near,  at.  Comp.  7T5  const.,  Ezek.  xviii.  18,  Koh.  v.  7, 
from  7T5  absol..  Lev.  v.  21  ;  Isa.  Ixi.  8.  See  Ewald  §  213  b,  Olshausen  §  167  b. 
That  the  form  which  occurs  here  is  the  pausal  form  is  shown  from  i  Chron. 
viii.  38,  where  in  the  same  verse  the  word  is  in  the  common  and  in  the  pausal  form. 
The  word  occurs  there  as  the  proper  name  of  a  man  (see  Olshausen  %  C)i  d).  But 
it  deserves  notice  that  the  ordinary  form  is  found  unchanged  in  pause  in  most 
editions  in  i  Chron.  ix.  44,  and  the  peculiarity  is  noticed  in  the  Hebrew  footnote  on 
that  passage.  Nouns  in  the  accusative  are  often  used  in  Hebrew  as  prepositions, 
and  the  word  here  may  be  well  regarded  as  such.  This  was  probably  the  view 
taken  by  the  Syr.,  Vulg.  and  Symm.,  and  it  is  that  of  Venema,  who  translates  ^'ad 
apnd,  ad z'iciniim,'''  as  well  as  defended  by  Kcihler,  whose  opinion  is  approved  by 
Miihlau  and  Volck  in  their  edition  of  Gesenius'  Worterb.  Similarly  G.  L.  Bauer, 
"  bis  auf  den  Grund."     See  on  the  versions  our  crit.  comm. 


4/8  ZECriARIAII   AXD    HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch  xiv.  5. 

shook  the  land,  and,  the  temple  being  split  asunder,  the  bright 
light  of  the  sun  shone  forth  and  fell  upon  the  face  of  the  king, 
so  that  immediately  the  leprosy  attacked  him.  But  before 
the  city,  at  the  place  called  Erogc,  the  half  of  the  mountain 
was  broken  which  was  towards  the  west  (scarcely  as  Whiston, 
"  the  western  half  of  the  mountain  "  ' ),  and  having  rolled  for 
four  stadia,  it  came  to  a  stand  at  the  eastern  part  of  the 
mountain,  so  that  both  the  roads  were  blocked  up  and  the 
royal  gardens."  This  narrative  bears  the  impress  of  being 
the  echo  of  a  legend  founded  on  this  passage  of  Zechariah 
rather  than  a  fact  of  history. 

The  earthquake  is,  however,  referred  to  in  the  book  of 
Amos,  and  must  have  been  of  no  ordinary  violence  (Amos 
i.  i).  Earthquakes  were  very  common  in  Palestine ;  con- 
sequently the  one  alluded  to  by  the  prophet  must  have  been 
of  a  peculiarly  terrific  character,  in  order  to  have  become  an 
epoch  from  which  events  were  reckoned.  The  allusion  in  this 
chapter  to  that  earthquake  cannot  be  considered  as  any  proof 
that  the  writer  must  have  been  a  contemporary  of  the  pro- 
phet Amos.  For  the  very  fact  of  such  an  earthquake  having 
been  distinctly  mentioned  by  Amos,  and  no  earthquake  of 
such  a  character  being  mentioned  in  any  of  the  historical 
books,  makes  it  easy  to  comprehend  why  it  should  have  been 
referred  to  by  a  post- exilian  writer,  acquainted,  as  Zechariah 
undoubtedly  was,  with  the  writings  of  the  earlier  prophets. 

Inasmuch  as  the  prophets  and  psalmists  of  Israel  represent 
the  coming  of  Jahavch,  for  any  purpose  whatever,  as  accom- 

^  The  words  are  irpb  5^  Trjs  7r6Xewj  irpbs  ng  KoXovfi^fy  'Epwyrj,  tou  6povs 
drro^payfjvai  rb  7Jp.i<rv  toD  Kara  ttjv  Slktiv,  k.t.X.  Dr.  Rahiner,  in  Gractz'  JlJonai- 
schi-'tft  des  yiidenthums  for  1870,  considers  tliat  'E/juiytj  in  Joseplius  is  probably 
nothing  more  than  a  transposition  of  *"in"X*3.  L.  de  Dieu  proposed  to  read 
ctpwyrj,  explaining  that  as  equivalent  to  X*3  IUl^',  but  ipuiyi]  seems  to  be  the 
correct  reading.  It  is  probable,  as  Rahmer  points  out  in  his  article,  that  the  legend 
in  Josephus  was  really  founded  upon  the  passage  in  Zechariah,  and  that  the  story 
of  the  road  being  blocked  up  arose  from  Josephus  haying  adopted  the  reading  of 
the  Oriental  Jews  in  this  passage  of  Zechariah. 


Ch.  xiv.  5.]    "  THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.      479 

panied  with  such  natural  phenomena,  Zechariah,  after  having 
lightly  touched  upon  the  terror  which  should  drive  the  people 
into  the  valley,  exclaims,  as  in  an  ecstasy  of  joy,  "And  Jaha- 
veh  my  God  comes,"  and  then  addressing  God,  whom  he  knew 
to  be  his  God,  adds,  "all  the  holy  ones  with  thee!"  ^  The 
angels  are  always  conceived  as  present  in  times  of  peril, 
and  in  days  of  judgment  (Ps,  xxxiv.  8,  E.  V,  verse  7),  for 
they  stand  ready  to  do  God  service,  and  to  execute  his  ven- 
geance. If  the  latter  was  a  duty  of  the  saints  on  earth  (Ps. 
cxlix.  5,  6),  much  more  did  it  appertain  to  the  holy  watchers 
in  heaven  (Dan.  iv.  17).  It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  coming 
of  Jahaveh  is  described  as  occurring  after  the  mention  of  his 
feet  having  stood  on  the  Mount  of  Olives.  This  may  intimate 
that  though  God  should  guide  and  direct  all  things  so  as 
to  secure  the  safety  of  his  people,  and  the  destruction  of  his 
enemies,  his  actual  presence  should  not  be  perceived  by  friend 
or  foe.  His  "  coming  "  spoken  of  in  this  passage  (verse  5) 
seems  to  be  identical  with  his  "  going  forth  to  fight  with  the 
nations  "  (verse  3).  It  is  a  going  forth  to  judgment  in  a  day 
of  his  wrath.  Though  the  holy  ones  or  angels  are  men- 
tioned, that  is  in  itself  no  proof  that  the  second  advent  is 
here  spoken  of,  the  accompaniments  of  which  will  be  very 
different  from  those  here  related.  Angels  are  said  to  have 
been  present  at   the  giving  of  the  Law,  though  they  were 

^  "^'py  here  is  the  pausal  form  of  "^^V^  second  masc,  not  the  second  fem., 
Ewald  §  247  c;  Ges.  §  105 ;  Kalisch  §  33,  18.  It  has  been  considered  as  a  fem., 
and  referred  to  Jerusalem,  by  Kimchi,  Ibn  Ezra,  etc.  Dnisius,  though  he 
explains  the  pronoun  as  referring  to  Jahaveh,  adds,  "  Scholia  Ebraica  pronomen 
referunt  ad  lerosolymam,  et  ita  hunc  locum  explicant,  O  lei-osolyma,  tunc  veniat 
Doniimis,  Deus  mens,  et  omnes  ipsms  saiicti tecum  erunt,  h.e.,  stabant  a  pai-tibiistuis. 
Valde  placet  animo  meo  ista  explicatio."  Still  worse  is  the  rendering  of  Cocceius, 
"  O  tu,  cum  qua  sunt  omnes  sancti."  The  expression  "  all  the  holy  ones  "  is  con- 
sidered by  Marck  to  mean  the  saints,  while  Vitringa,  in  his  comm.  on  Apoc.  xv.  3, 
thinks  that  both  angels  and  saints  are  signified,  which  is,  perhaps,  more  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  analogy  of  Dan.  vii.  9,  10 ;  Matt.  xvi.  27,  xxv.  31 ;  2  Thess.  i.  7  ; 
Rev.  xix.  14.  That  which  is  to  occur  in  the  great  day  of  days  occurs  also  in  the 
other  days  of  the  manifestation  of  Jahaveh  to  judge  his  foes  and  to  deliver  his  people. 


480  ZECHARIAII   AND    IIIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiv.  5. 

not  actually  seen  by  the  people  of  Israel   (Deut.  xxxiii.  2  ; 
Ps.  Ixviii.  18,  E.  V.  16). 

When  a  day  of  Jahaveh's  coming  to  execute  judgment  is 
spoken  of,  that  day  is  generally  characterised  as  a  day  of 
darkness,  in  which  there  should  be  no  light.     Thus  when  the 
destruction  of  Babylon   is  predicted  by  Isaiah,  and  the  pro- 
phet speaks  of  that  land  being  laid  waste,  among  the  features 
of  that  day  of  vengeance,  he  notices  that  "  the  stars  of  heaven 
and  the  constellations  thereof  (lit.,  its  Orions,  or  giants)  shall 
not  give  their  light,  the  sun  shall  be  darkened  in  his  going 
forth,  and  the  moon  shall  not  cause  her  light  to  shine  "  (Isa. 
xiii.  9,  10).     Still  more  terrible  is  the  picture,  when  the  same 
prophet  is  describing  God's  wrath  against  Edom.     In  that 
case  all  the  host  of  heaven  is  spoken  of  as  dissolved,  and  the 
heavens  as  rolled  together  like  a  mighty  scroll,  and  all  their 
stars  as  falling  towards  the  earth  like  leaves  from  the  vine  or 
fig  tree  (Isa.  xxxiv.  4).      Nature  is  represented  as  clothed  in 
darkness,  which  is  the  garb  of  wrath,  in  every  day  of  Jaha- 
veh's wrath  ;  as  on  the  other  hand  it  is  represented  as  rejoicing 
in  a  day  when  Jahaveh  exhibits  mercy  and  love  to  his  people 
(see  p.  488).    Such  figures  are  no  doubt  also  made  use  of  when 
the  great  day  of  the  wrath  of  tlic  Lamb  is  spoken  of  (Matt, 
xxiv.  29  ;  Rev.  vi.  12-17).     But  we  have  no  warrant  whatever, 
in  defiance  of  the  plain  words  of  the  Old  Test,  prophets,  to 
consider  their  descriptions  of  temporal  judgments  sent  on  par- 
ticular nations  as  having  reference  to  that  great  day  of  the  Lord. 
This  imagery  is  common  to  the  other  prophets.     It  is  used 
by  Joel  when  describing   the    gloom  cast  over  the  face  of 
nature  by  a  terrible  plague  of  locusts  to  be  sent  upon  the 
land  of  Israel,  wherewith  the  land  should  be  visited  in  a  day 
of  Jahaveh's  wrath  (Joel  ii.  2,  10,  see  verse  25).     That  prophet 
also  uses  the  same  imagery  in  his  description  of  the  great 
final  day  of  wrath,  which  he,  like  the  other  prophets  of  Israel, 
views  in   the   light   of  the  old  dispensation   (Joel   iii.  4,  L.  V. 


Ch.xiv.6.]  "THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.       48  I 

ii.  31,  and  iv.  15,  16,  E.  V.  iii.  15,  16).  Ezekiel  uses  very  similar 
language  in  his  prophetical  lament  over  the  king  of  Egypt 
and  his  downfall :  "  and  when  I  will  put  thee  out,  I  will  cover 
the  heaven,  and  make  the  stars  thereof  dark.  I  will  cover 
the  sun  with  a  cloud,  and  the  moon  shall  not  give  her  light : 
all  the  bright  lights  of  heaven  (all  lights  of  the  light  in 
heaven)  will  I  make  dark  over  thee,  and  set  darkness  upon 
thy  land,  saith  the  Lord  GOD  "  (Ezek.  xxxii.  7,  8  ;  comp.  also 
Zeph.  i.  15,  etc.) 

The  same  picture  is  presented  by  Zechariah :  "And  it  shall 
be  in  that  day  that  there  shall  be  no  light,  precious  things 
(or,  the  lights)  shall  be  contracted."  That  is,  the  glories  of 
heaven  shall  disappear.  That  which  is  now  precious  shall 
cease   to  be   so    in   the    day  of  wrath   referred    to.^      Such 

'  The  consonants  of  the  text,  as  in  all  cases  where  a  k'ri  note  occurs,  are  to  be  con- 
sidered as  unpointed.     The  words  must  either  be  read  actively,  |-1X5p)   riflp]',  or 
passively,  as  Gesenius  in  Thes.,  |-1SD|?1  Htlp^     Comp.  with  respect  to  the  irregu- 
larity of  construction  similar  irregularities,  Gen.  xv.  17,  ^^^    Htp^yi,  and  Isa.  xxi.  2, 
''r'^^n  i^^'i^  ri-1Tn.     These  irregularities  cannot  all  be  explained  on  the  principle 
stated  in  Ges.  Gr.  §  147,  rem.  2.     Compare  on  similar  irregularities  with  pronominal 
suffixes,  Ges.  Lehrg.  §  139,  2,  p.  731.    The  verb  is  used  of  the  waters  heing  coniracft'ii 
or  gathered  into  heaps  (Exod.  xv.  8),  and  of  sitting  with  the  feet  ^'■«///cvy(/  ?</  under 
one  (Zeph.  i.  12  ;  comp.  Jer.  xlviii.  1 1) ;  and  in  hiphil  of  the  ciu-dling  of  milk.     The 
adj.  used  here  commonly  signifies /;r«c?/j,  and  is  often  used  of  stones,  of  life  (Prov. 
vi.  26),  of  the  death  of  saints  (Ps.  cxxvi.  15),  and  of  men.     It  is  used  also  of  the 
resplendent  moon  walking  in  the  heavens,  or,  as  our  A.  V.  has  it,  the  moon 
walking  in  brightness  (Job  xxxi.  26).    The  phrase  has  been  explained  by  Gesenius, 
von  Hofmann,  Kohler,  etc.,  "the  splendid  (stars)   contract  their  splendour,"  that 
is,  wane  and  disappear.     The  feminine  is  employed  because  the  adjective  is  used 
in   a  neuter   signification.       Compare   for   the   absence   of   the   article   in    such 
poetical  expressions,  Hab.  iii.  ii;  Isa.  xiii.  10.     We  might  also  render  generally 
"  splendid  (things)  will  be  contracted,"  which  would  afford  the  same  meaning,  the 
stars  being  mainly  thought  of,  though  not  exclusively.     The  translation  given  by 
Hengstenberg  is,  "the  precious  will  become  mean,"  but  his  explanation  does  not 
substantially  differ  from  our  rendering.     L.  de  Dieu  explains  the  precious  things  to 
mean  the  heavens,  sun,  moon  and  stars,  etc,  and  notes  that  all  these  will  be  dissolved 
at  the  end  of  time  (2  Pet.  iii.  10-12),  and  being  dissolved  will  flow  together  and 
coalesce  as  it  were  into  one  mass.     See  note  in  Hengst.  Christ,  vol.  iv.  p.  130,  Eng. 
transl.     The  question  is  asked  in  the  Gemara  (Pesachim,  fol.  50,  col.  i),  what  is  the 
meaning  of  Zech.  xiv.  6  ?  and  the  answer  is,  "  This  is  the  light  which  is  precious 
in  this  world,  and  ''•IDj!?  common  (of  no  value)  in  the  world  to  come."     Such  is  thCs 

I    I 


482  ZliCllARIAH   AND    HIS   rROPHECIES.      [Ch.  xiv.  6,  7. 

seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  text.  It  presents, 
however,  several  pecuHarities.  The  expression  used  for  the 
lights  of  heaven  occurs  nowhere  else  in  that  signification. 
The  verb  is  masculine,  although  its  nominative,  which  pre- 
cedes, is  feminine.  These  difficulties,  however,  are  not  by  any 
means  conclusive  against  the  reading  of  the  text.  But  the  k'ri 
reading  gives  a  veiy  different  sense  to  the  passage,  and  one 
by  no  means  as  intelligible  :  "  there  will  no  light,  cold  and  ice." 
This  reading  has  been  adopted  by  Hitzig  with  a  slight  modi- 
fication, and  he  renders  "  there  will  be  no  light,  only  cold  and 
ice."  He  explains  the  latter  as  thought  of  on  account  of  the 
utter  absence  of  the  light  of  the  sun,  which  the  prophet  con- 
templates as  characterising  this  day.^  Similar  is  the  view  of 
Maurer,  who  considers  the  passage  depicts  the  horrors  of 
that  day.  This  is  also  the  view  of  the  Targum — "  there  will 
be  nothing  that  day  but  privation  and  coagulation  "  (scil.  of 
the  light) — and  that  of  the  other  versions  (see  our  foot-note).^ 

explanation  of  VSp,  which  is  connected  with  SQp,  and  is  explained  by  7p  light,  not 
heavy.     So  Buxtorf,  C/talJ.  and  Talin.  Lex.  s.v.,  and  Levy,  ChalJ.  IVorterbtich. 

^  The  reading  of  the  text  according  to  the  k'ri  is  jlXSpl  n'Hi'JV  The  second 
noun  is  nowhere  else  met  with.  According  to  this  riTli?^  is  to  be  understood  as 
equivalent  to  ntii?,  after  the  analogy  of  the  k'ri  on  Prov.  xvii.  27,  where,  instead 
of  n-"n""l|"51.,  which  is  found  in  the  text,  the  marg.  has  'Tlp^..  T\'\~\\\  would  be  an 
extensive  plural  (orig.  of  iTJi?,  adj.  cold),  like  HlpVy,  gleanings,  D^pS,  the  conn- 
ienance.  Bottcher  {Ncne  Aehrctilese)  would  prefer  the  sing,  form  ri-Tli?^ 
which,  though  it  does  not  occur,  yet  suits  better  with  the  other  singular  nouns,  and 
has  analogies  for  it,  such  as  n-l"!"!!?,  darkness.  The  form  would  also  harmonise 
with  the  late  date  of  the  book.  As  the  adoption  of  a  root  ")p''="l"lp  is  doubtful, 
Rosenmiiller,  IIitzig,Ewald,  etc.,  would  read  simply  TTHpl..  The  letters  and  ^  are 
Avilh  difficulty  distinguished  in  MSS.  ;  in  the  oldest  MSS.,  as  well  as  in  inscrip- 
tions like  those  of  the  Galilean  synagogues  given  by  Renan,  no  difference  is  per- 
ceptible. The  LXX.  support  this  opinion,  reading  koX  xpOxv  Kal  wdyos,  and  .Symm. 
d\\6.  \pvxos  Kal  wdyos.  So  Syr.,  and  Vulg.  scd  /rigus  et  gelu.  But  the  difficulty 
in  the  way  of  such  a  translation  as  is  given  by  the  ancient  versions  is  that  the  fust 
of  the  two  copulas  must  be  understood  in  an  adversative  sense,  and  next  that  it 
would  be  necessary  to  supply  in  the  second  clause  the  substantive  verb  without 
the  negative  which  occurs  in  the  first.  The  rendering  of  Ewald,  Umbreit,  etc, 
avoids  these  difficulties.     See  above. 

-  Kimchi's  words  are  "the  light  shall  neither  be  T\'\'\\>^,  precious,  nor  }1XSp 
thickness"   (McCaul's  transl.).      He  cannot  possibly  have  meant  that  those  words 


Ch.  xiv.  6.]   "  THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.       483 

But  Ewald,  Umbreit  and  Bunsen,  understand  the  passage  as 
depicting  not  the  terrors  or  horrors  of  the  day,  but  the  very- 
opposite,  rendering  "  there  will  be  no  sunshine  with  cold  and 
ice."  Bunsen  explains  the  passage  to  mean  that  the  regular 
change  of  summer  and  winter,  of  light  and  darkness,  shall 
cease,  and  there  shall  be  constant  sunshine.  And  Ewald 
refers  to  "the  pure,  unclouded,  changeless  light"  (Rev.  xxi.  23). 
Theiner  adopts  the  translation  of  Ewald,  but  explains  it  to 
mean  "  the  ambiguous,  uncertain  state  of  the  nation  !  " 

The  difficulty  in  the  way  of  these  renderings  is  that  there 
is  no  real  antithesis  between  light  and  cold.  Had  such 
been  his  meaning,  the  prophet  would  rather  have  spoken  of 
light  and  darkness,  heat  and  frost.  In  no  other  passage  of 
any  of  the  prophets  is  there  a  word  about  cold  and  frost. 
Ewald's  rendering  "  sunshine "  is  rather  a  strange  rendering 
of  the  simple  word  "  light  "  (TlK),  which  in  the  original  does 
not  convey  the  contrast  which  Ewald's  translation  expresses. 

Kimchi  has  given  a  different  explanation  of  the  reading 
of  the  k'ri,  which  has  been  adopted  by  our  Authorised  Ver- 
sion, "  the  light  shall  not  be  clear  nor  dark."  This  translation 
is  recognised  now  as  indefensible,  though  it  was  that  adopted 
by  many  of  the  older  post-Reformation  critics,  as  Miinster, 
Calvin,  Drusius,  etc.  It  is  unnecessary,  therefore,  to  discuss 
whether  its  meaning  is,  as  Kimchi  says,  "  the  day  shall  not  be 
entirely  light  nor  entirely  dark,  i.e.,  it  shall  not  pass  entirely 
in  tranquillity  nor  in  affliction,  for  they  two  shall  be  in  it,  and 
so  he  says  afterwards,  not  day  and  not  night;"  or,  as  in  the 
marg.  note  of  our  A.  V.,  "  it  shall  not  be  clear  in  some  places 
and  dark  in  other  places  of  the  world." 

The  day,  or  period,  of  which  the  prophet  speaks,  was  to  be 
a  day  or  period  completely  unique,  "  one "   of  wdiich    there 

are  to  be  regarded  as  predicates  to  IIS  n\T^  N?,  as  such  a  connection  would  be 
grossly  ungrammatical,  but  rather  as  genitives  governed  by  "IIN,  "  there  shall  not 
be  light  of  preciousness  (lux  pretiositatum — Vatabhis)  nor  of  thickness  (lit.,  coagu- 
lated light)." 


484  ZECHARIAII   AND    HIS    PROniECIES.      [Cb.  xiv.  6,  7. 

was  to  be  no  second.  Compare  the  expression  in  Ezek.  vii.  5, 
"  an  evil,  one  evil,"  which  at  once  was  to  make  such  an  end  of 
Israel  that  no  second  stroke  would  be  required.  The  numeral 
might  almost  be  said  to  be  used  in  the  sense  of  "peculiar," 
"unique."  Cant.  vi.  9  and  Job  xxiii.  13  have  been  cited  as 
instances  of  this  signification,  but  they  are  somewhat  doubt- 
ful. The  idea  seems  to  be  that  presented  in  Jer.  xxx.  7, 
"  alas  !  for  that  day  is  great,  so  that  none  is  like  it  ;  it  is  even 
the  time  of  Jacob's  trouble  ;  but  he  shall  be  saved  out  of 
it."  Rosenmuller,  Hitzig  and  Keil  thus  explain  the  passage. 
Kohler  considers  that  one  single  day  is  spoken  of,  but  such 
an  exposition  does  not  seem  to  harmonise  with  the  clause  that 
follows,  where  the  peculiarity  of  this  "  one  day  "  is  said  to 
consist  in  its  being  neither  day  nor  night,  and  in  its  evening 
ending  not  in  darkness  but  in  light.  Nor  does  Hengstenberg's 
explanation,  "  a  very  short  period  "  (tcmpus  non  longum — - 
Cocceius)  seem  to  suit  the  context. 

The  next  clause  has  been  translated  by  Hitzig  and  Kohler, 
"  it  will  be  chosen  by  Jahaveh."  Compare  the  use  of  the 
verb  rendered  in  our  A.  V.  "  known,"  in  Amos  iii.  2  ;  Gen. 
xviii.  19.  The  construction  of  the  verb  in  this  place  with 
the  preposition  /  is  an  objection  in  the  way  of  this  trans- 
lation. Hengstenberg  explains  it  as  :  "  it  is  known  to  the 
Lord,  it  is  under  his  supervision  and  direction.  It  does  not 
come  unexpectedly  or  interfere  with  his  plans."  But  the 
verb  can  scarcely  imply  so  much.  Nor  are  we  inclined  to 
coincide  with  the  view  of  Keil,  that  the  nature  of  this  day  is 
known  to  the  Lord,  distinguished  absolutely  above  all  other 
days,  though  this  sense  would  suit  the  previous  clause,  and 
might  be  taken  as  an  explanation  of  it.  We  are  rather 
inclined  to  agree  with  the  rendering  of  Ewald,  "  it  is  known 
to  Jahaveh,"  though  we  cannot  exactly  adopt  his  explana- 
tion :  "  it  is  a  day  which  as  yet  no  man  has  seen,  but  Jahaveh 
knows  it ;  it  is  possible  with  Jahaveh,  and   he  will  bring  it." 


Ch.  xiv.7.]  "  THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.      485 

Rather,  "it  is  known  to  Jahaveh,"  he  has  a  constant  and  abid- 
ing knowledge  of  this  period,  and  he  knows  both  its  begin- 
nmg  and  its  end,  which  man  does  not.  The  meaning  of  the 
phrase  is  similar  to,  though  not  exactly  identical  with,  our 
Lord's  expression  concerning  the  day  of  his  second  coming, 
"  Of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels 
which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father " 
(Mark  xiii.  32).  The  great  day  of  judgment  is  not,  however, 
that  which  is  here  intended.  No  mention  is  made  of  the 
great  events  of  that  day,  or  of  the  dissolution  of  the  world 
at  large.  A  period  rather  than  a  single  day  is  signified,  and 
the  commencement  and  conclusion  of  that  important  period 
are  said  to  be  known  only  to  Jahaveh. 

This  period  is  described  as  "  not  day  and  not  night." 
Kohler  thinks  that  this  means  that  the  day  is  to  be  a  confused 
mixture  of  both.  Keil  considers  that  the  "day"  spoken  of 
really  belongs  neither  to  the  day  nor  night,  because  the  lights 
of  heaven  which  severally  rule  the  day  and  the  night  (Gen. 
i.  18),  have  lost  their  lustre,  and  because  at  the  evening  of  the 
day  to  which  Zechariah  refers,  when  the  darkness  of  night 
might  have  been  expected,  light  appears.  It  is,  however,  per- 
haps better  to  adopt  a  modification  of  the  view  proposed  by 
Kohler.  This  day,  or  period,  should  partake  somewhat  of  the 
nature  of  night  on  account  of  the  darkness  which  is  prevalent, 
and  somewhat  of  the  character  of  day,  by  reason  of  the 
light  which  should  be  manifested  throughout  its  course  in 
spite  of  the  darkness.  The  great  period  of  the  Messianic 
dispensation  seems  to  us  to  be  signified  by  the  "  day  of  Ja- 
haveh," that  dispensation  which  in  some  respects  may  be 
considered  as  having  commenced  in  darkness  and  judgment 
for  Israel,  but  which  is  to  end  in  blessing  for  that  people, — 
its  evening  will  be  a  time  of  light.  This  day  is  not  a 
period  of  darkness,  for  the  light  has  come,  and  the  glory 
of  the    Lord  has  risen,  even  upon   Jerusalem  with   all   her 


486  ZECIIARIAII    AND    HIS    PROriiECIES.  [Ch.  xiv.  7. 

trials  (Isa.  Ix.  i),  by  the  advent  of  the  Messiah.  The  dark- 
ness which  covered  the  Gentile  earth,  and  the  gross  darkness 
which  enveloped  the  peoples,  have  been  partially  chased  away. 
It  is  day,  but  not  yet  the  perfect  day,  for  though  "  the  Light 
of  the  world"  (John  viii.  12)  has  come,  the  light  shines  in 
the  darkness  and  the  darkness  connprehends  it  not  (John  i.  5). 
The  promise  that  "at  evening,"  just  at  the  very  period 
when  it  usually  begins  to  grow  dark,  the  threatening  dark- 
ness shall  be  dispelled  by  a  flood  of  light,  is  very  beautiful. 
Pressel  seems  to  be  correct  in  his  observation  that  this 
characteristic  of  the  day  of  redemption  for  Israel  is  borrowed 
from  the  description  of  the  day  of  creation  (Gen.  i.  5;. 
The  usual  order  of  things  is  inverted,  the  day  does  not 
terminate  in  darkness.  A  remarkable  contrast  occurs  in 
Amos  viii.  9,  where,  speaking  of  a  day  of  judgment,  mention 
is  made  of  the  sun  going  down  at  noon,  and  darkness  coming 
over  the  land  in  clear  day.  But  it  is  not  said  that  the  light 
of  this  glorious  evening  shall  endure  for  ever,  and  never  pale, 
as  has  been  thought  by  several  commentators.  Keil,  indeed, 
observes  that  this  is  not  stated  in  words,  but  is  to  be  con- 
cluded from  a  comparison  with  Rev.  xxi.  23,  25.  But  though 
in  some  respects  the  same  period  may  be  considered  as 
referred  to,  the  picture  presented  by  Zechariah  is  different 
from  that  in  the  Revelation.  The  natural  processes  of  nature, 
winter,  and  summer,  and  rainy  seasons,  and  consequently  day 
and  night,  are  represeated  by  Zechariah  as  still  going  for- 
ward (verses  8,  17).  On  the  other  hand,  we  can  scared}' 
agree  w^ith  the  idea  of  Kohler  that  the  passage  is  to  be 
explained,  after  the  analogy  of  Josh.  x.  12,  13,  of  the  pro- 
longation of  twilight,  in  which  case  the  meaning  would  be 
that  the  day  should  be  long  enough  therein  to  complete 
the  great  purposes  designed  to  be  accomplished.  It  neeci 
scarcely  be  observed  that  the  passage  is  one  which  was  not 
intended  to  be  understood  in  a  literal  signification. 


Ch.xiv.S.]    "THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.      487 

Having  spoken  of  the  day  or  period  itself,  and  noticed  its 
peculiarities,  Zechariah  next  describes  the  beginning  of  the 
renovation  and  transformation  of  the  world.  That  "  re- 
generation"  begins  "at  Jerusalem."  The  land  is  gradually- 
transformed  in  that  glorious  period  by  the  "  living  waters  " 
which  "go  forth  from  Jerusalem,"  "half  of  them  towards  the 
eastern  sea,  and  half  of  them  to  the  hinder  (western)  sea." 
"  Living  water"  properly  means  in  the  language  of  the  sacred 
writers  that  water  which  springs,  or  bubbles  up,  from  the 
ground,  the  supply  of  which  is  lasting  when  compared  with 
the  rain  water,  which  comes  down  in  torrents  in  the  East,  and 
soon  fills  the  valleys,  but  flows  off  rapidly  towards  the  sea. 
The  "  living  waters  "  are  represented  here  as  coming  from 
Jerusalem,  now  once  more  viewed  as  the  holy  city  (Isa.  lii.  i). 
Similarly  a  fountain  is  spoken  of  in  Joel  iv.  18  (E.V.  iii.  18), 
as  coming  forth  out  of  the  house  of  Jahaveh  ;  and  Ezekiel, 
in  his  vision  of  the  waters  which  transform  the  whole  face 
of  the  land,  describes  the  river  as  flowing  forth  from  the 
sanctuary  (chap,  xlvii.  1-12).  Thus  also  the  Apocalyptic  seer 
represents  the  pure  river  of  the  water  of  life  as  proceeding 
out  of  the  throne  of  God  and  the  Lamb  (Rev.  xxii.  i).  For 
as  a  stream  went  forth  out  of  Eden  after  watering  that 
garden  to  refresh  the  whole  face  of  the  earth  (Gen.  ii.  10), 
and  as  the  river  of  God's  grace  is  represented,  even  in  the  old 
dispensation,  by  the  Psalmist  (Ps.  xlvi.  5,  E.  V.  verse  4)  as 
making  glad  the  city  of  God  (comp.  Ps.  xxxvi.  9,  E.V.  verse  8); 
so  the  prophet  describes  the  living  waters  as  going  forth  out 
of  Jerusalem  to  water  the  whole  surface  of  the  land.  These 
streams  are  not  merely  to  flow  in  the  winter,  in  which  time 
streams  abound  everywhere  in  Palestine,  but  are  to  be  such 
as  last  all  the  year.  Compare  Job  vi.  16-18,  where  the, 
failure  of  winter  streams  during  the  summer  is  vividly  de- 
picted. The  picture  described  by  Isaiah  is  here  realized. 
For  that  prophet   predicted    that  in   the  day    of  the   Lord, 


488  ZECIIARIAH   AND   HIS   rROPIIECIES.  [Ch.  xiv.  8. 

when  the  loftiness  of  man  should  be  brought  low  {Isa.  ii.  ii), 
and  the  proud  towers  should  fall  ;  in  their  stead  there  would 
be  fruitful  heights,  whence  fertilizing  streams  would  proceed 
(Isa.  XXX.  25). 

The  two  streams  represented  here  as  flowing  east  and  west 
correspond  to  the  four  streams  of  Paradise  spoken  of  in 
Genesis.  The  whole  is  to  be  viewed  as  an  ideal  scene,  and 
not  as  a  literal  description.  Comp.  Isa.  xli.  17,  18,  xiiii.  20, 
xliv.  3,  etc.  The  physical  nature  of  the  whole  land  would 
require  to  be  changed  to  permit  literal  rivers  to  flow  forth 
from  Jerusalem.  The  prophet,  indeed,  describes  such  a  ph}'si- 
:  cal  change  in  the  position  of  Jerusalem  (verse  10),  but  the 
I  change  must  be  considered  as  an  ideal  one.  Rivers  of  grace 
are  here  signified,  which  are  depicted  as  forming  one  mighty 
stream  in  Ezekiel  and  the  Revelation.  As  all  nature  is  repre- 
sented as  mourning  and  sad  in  a  day  of  God's  wrath,  for  then 
the  fertile  fields  become  a  wilderness,  and  the  trees  and  plants 
wither,  the  cattle  die,  and  the  birds  of  heaven  flee  away  ; 
so  in  a  day  in  which  the  mercy  and  grace  of  Jahaveh  are 
displayed,  the  wilderness  becomes  a  fertile  field,  the  trees 
clap  their  hands  and  are  clothed  with  verdure,  the  birds  sing 
in  their  branches,  while  the  mountains  and  hills  break  forth 
into  singing,  and  the  lambs  feed  after  their  manner,  no 
longer  terrified  by  beasts  of  prey.  (See  Isa.  v.  17,  xxxv.  i,  2, 
Iv.  12,  13,  Ixiv.  10,  with  Jer.  iv.  23-27,  etc.).  Compare  the 
language  of  the  apostle,  one  day  to  be  gloriously  realized, 
"  the  creation  itself  shall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of 
corruption  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God  " 
(Rom.  viii.  21). 

In  such  a  day  of  blessing,  "  Jahaveh  shall  be  as  a  king 
over  all  the  land  "  (verse  9).  This  has  been  generally  ex- 
plained to  mean  "  over  all  the  earth."  But  Kohler,  Keil,  and 
Pressel  are  right  in  rejecting  this  view.  For  in  the  previous 
verse  Zcchariah  speaks  only  of  the  land  of  Judah,  not  even 


Ch.xiv.S,9.]  "  THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.    489 

of  the  whole  of  the  land  of  Israel.  In  that  which  fol- 
lows (verse  10)  he  mentions  the  land  of  Judah  under  the 
same  designation  {Y"lKn  b^),  for  its  limits  are  expressly 
stated  as  reaching  from  Geba  to  Rimmon.  It  is  almost  im- 
possible to  consider  "  the  whole  earth  "  to  be  meant  in  the 
intervening  verse  (verse  9).  It  is  there  stated  that  the  reign 
of  Jahaveh  would  first  embrace  Jerusalem  and  Judah.  The 
great  battle  which  was  to  result  in  victory  is  described  as 
"  beginning  at  Jerusalem  "  (verse  14).  Judah  is  to  acknow- 
ledge the  true  God,  and  to  be  victorious  in  his  cause.  Zecha- 
riah's  description  of  the  transformation  of  the  Holy  Land 
(verses  10,  11)  presents  evident  marks  of  having  been  com- 
posed at  a  time  when  only  the  narrow  district  there  named 
was  in  actual  possession  of  the  people  of  the  covenant,  and 
he  accordingly  describes  the  great  blessing  as  commencing 
within  that  territory.  Thus  the  description  might  be  viewed 
as  affording  an  indication  of  the  date  of  the  writer,  who  lived 
some  years  after  the  erection  of  the  second  temple,  when 
that  district  only  was  in  the  possession  of  the  Jews,  and  when 
there  was  much  reason  to  fear  a  gathering  of  the  nations 
around  against  Jerusalem.  The  prophets  often  saw  the 
future  on  the  background  of  their  own  present,  and  it  was 
under  such  circumstances  and  amid  such  fears  that  Zechariah 
was  inspired  to  portray  this  picture  of  "  the  last  things "  or 
"  the  latter  days." 

The  statement  that  "  in  that  day  Jahaveh  shall  be  one,  and 
his  name  one,"  is  by  no  means  superfluous.  It  may  be  com- 
pared with  Jer.  xxxi.  i,  "at  the  same  time,  saith  Jahaveh, 
will  I  be  the  God  of  all  the  families  of  Israel,  and  they  shall 
be  my  people."  In  the  commencement  of  this  prophecy 
of  Zechariah,  Jahaveh  is  described  as  acting  against  Jeru- 
salem on  account  of  its  sin.  He  is  now  represented  as  the 
one  King  and  God  of  his  ransomed  people,  recognised  by 
them  as  such,  his  name  only,  and  not  that  of  other  gods, 


490  ZECIIARIAIT    AND    HIS    rROrilECIES.  [Ch.  xiv.  9. 

being  named  by  his  people.  No  doubt  Jahaveh  was  from 
the  beginning  the  only  God,  "  for  all  the  gods  of  the  nations 
are  idols,  but  Jahaveh  made  the  heavens  "  (Ps.  xcvi.  5).  But  he 
was  not  recognised  as  such  by  his  people,  for  they  often  forsook 
him  and  served  other  gods.  The  difficulty  which  Henderson 
seems  to  find  in  this  translation  of  the  verse,  that  it  would 
make  the  passage  teach  cither  that  Jahaveh  was  not  one  be- 
fore, or  that  he  would  cease  to  be  triune,  is  purely  imaginar3^ 

Lange  protests  strongly  against  the  view  of  those  who 
consider  verse  9  to  refer  only  to  the  land  of  Judah.  He 
forgets,  however,  that  no  one  maintains  that  the  prophet 
imagined  the  limits  of  Jahavch's  reign  would  be  confined  to 
the  limits  of  Judah,  but  only  that  he  speaks  of  the  Lord's  king- 
dom as  commencing  in  that  place  where  his  wrath  would  be 
most  terribly  poured  forth  on  both  Israel  and  the  Gentiles. 
There,  as  the  very  result  of  that  judgment,  was  Jahaveh  first 
to  be  honoured  and  accepted  as  king  by  both  Israel  and  the 
Gentiles,  The  latter  are  to  be  thought  of  as  intermingled 
with  Israel,  for  that  which  is  only  briefly  related  in  verses  8-1 1 
is  described  more  in  detail  in  verses  12- 17. 

Lange  prefers  to  adopt  the  explanation  of  the  last  clause 
given  by  Hitzig,  namely,  that  in  consequence  of  the  display  of 
Jahaveh's  glory,  the  heathen  who  had  hitherto  worshipped 
God  under  other  names,  such  as  Moloch,  Baal,  etc.,  should 
from  henceforth  honour  and  adore  him  as  Jahaveh,  under 
which  name  he  had  made  liimsclf  known  to  the  people  of 
Israel.  The  idea  that  the  heathen  under  the  various  names 
of  their  gods  really  meant  to  worship  Jahaveh  appears  to  be 
an  attempt  to  engraft  modern  ideas  upon  those  of  the  Old 
Testament  prophets. 

The  prophet  next  proceeds  to  speak  of  the  change  in 
the  configuration  of  the  whole  land.  "  All  the  land  will 
change   itself,"  or,  "  be  changed,  ^  (so  as  to  become)  as  the 

*  The   form   here   found,  31D*,  has  been  considered  by  Gesenius  as  a  Chaldee 


Ch.xiv.g.io.]  "THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.   49! 

Arabah."  ^  The  clause  cannot  certainly  be  explained  with 
Kliefoth,  "  as  the  plain  from  Gebah  to  Rimmon,"  for,  as 
Keil  notes,  the  whole  of  that  country  is  composed  ot 
mountains  and  hills.^  Kliefoth  is  not  forgetful  of  this  fact, 
but  his  idea  is  that  the  passage  first  describes  the  country 
around  Jerusalem  as  sinking  so  as  to  become  a  plain  with 
the  city  of  Jerusalem  towering  aloft  in  its  centre,  and  after- 
wards the  whole  of  the  earth  as  becoming  in  the  future  a 
plain  like  that  plain,  watered  literally  by  streams  from 
Jerusalem.  But  this  is  a  most  unnatural  exposition,  and 
need  not  be  discussed  here. 

The  Arabah  is  the  name  of  that  remarkable  depression 
which  runs  from  the  slopes  of  Hermon  to  the  Red  Sea,  known 
as  the  deepest  depression  on  the  surface  of  the  globe,  the  Sea 
of  Galilee,  situated  within  it,  being  652  feet  below  the  level 
of  the    Mediterranean,   w^iile  the   Dead    Sea,  which  is  also 

fonn  for  3D^  impf.  kal.  See  Ges.  §  67,  5,  rem.  Olshausen,  §  243  d.  But  on 
the  other  hand  Fiirst  ^maintains  it  is  a  niphul.  It  would  be  then  a  mixed  form, 
like  that  of  verbs  VT.  liottcher,  Lehrb.  §  1 147  (vol.  ii.  p.  519  note),  maintains 
this  latter  view.  He  observes  that  the  imperfect  of  this  form  is  distinguished  from 
3DJ  in  meaning,  and  is  clearly  used  as  a  reflcMive,  while  3D"*  is  never  used  in 
such  a  sense.  Hence  he  agrees  with  those  Jewish  grammarians  who  consider  the 
form  to  be  a  niphal.  The  masculine  form  of  the  vei-b  is  frequently  used  with  a  fem. 
subject  as  here,  where  the  verb  precedes  its  subject.  See  Ges.  §  147  a.  When 
constnied  with  3  the  verb  signifies  as  here  "  so  that  it  will  become  as." 

'  Though  Ewald,  Arnlieim,  Bunsen,  etc,  translate  with  our  A.V.  "as  a  plain," 
and  it  is  possible  that  the  article  might  be  explained  as  used  often  in  Hebrew  in 
comparisons  where  we  make  use  of  the  indefinite  (Ges.  §  109,  3,  rem.  i),  there 
is  little  doubt  that  the  great  plain  known  by  the  Arabic  writers  as  the  Arabah  or 
the  Ghor  is  that  referred  to.  This  is  the  view  defended  by  Hitzig,  Hengstenberg, 
Maurer,  Lange,  and  Keil.  Kohler  also  prefers  this  translation.  It  must,  however, 
be  noted  that  the  more  correct  pnnctuation  of  ithe  passage,  according  to  the  Maso- 
retic  text,  seems  to  be  n3"iy3,  without  the  article,  and  this  reading  is  adopted 
by  Baer  in  his  critical  edition  of  the  Minor  Prophets  (Leipzig,  1878),  as  well  as  in 
his  edition  of  Isaiah  (xxxiii.  9).  The  majority  of  MSS.,  including  the  Babylonian 
codex,  appear  to  express  the  article,  and  this  is  the  more  suitable  reading  as 
far  as  the  sense  is  concerned.     See  our  crit.  comm. 

2  The  translation  of  Umbreit  is  the  same  as  that  of  Kliefoth,  but  Umbreit  does 
not  understand  the  passage  differently  from  Ewald,  as  he  explains  it  to  mean  "  the 
city  of  God  will  be  situated  high  and  glorious  in  a  wide  plain,  throned  as  a  queen, 
safe,  etc." 


492  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS    rROniECIES.  [Ch.  xiv.  lo. 

included  in  its  course,  is  1,316  feet  below  that  level,  or 
the  level  of  the  Red  Sea.  Hitzig  thinks  that  reference 
is  made  by  the  prophet  to  the  fertility  of  that  valley  ;  but 
though  the  Ghor  has  fertile  spots,  such  as  that  once  described 
in  Gen.  xiii.  10,  its  features  are  generally  of  the  very  oppo- 
site character,'  and  it  is  evident  that  it  is  to  its  great  depth 
that  the  prophet  here  refers. 

The  portion  of  the  land  mentioned  as  to  be  depressed  to 
the  level  of  the  Ghor  or  Arabah  is  that  which  extends  from 
Geba,  the  modern  Jeba',  probably  Gibea  of  Saul,  in  the 
territory  of  Benjamin  (Josh,  xviii.  24),  situated  between  Mich- 
mash  and  Ramah  (Isa.  x.  28,  29),  which  formed  the  northern 
boundary  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  (2  Kings  xxiii.  8),  even 
to  Rimmon  south  of  Jerusalem.  The  latter  place  formed 
the  southern  boundary  of  Judah  on  the  borders  of  Kdom, 
south  of  Eleutheropolis,  probably  Rimmon  (Josh.  xv.  32) 
belonging  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  not  far  from  Beersheba, 
now  the  ruin  Umm  er  Rumamin.  It  afterwards  belonged  to 
the  tribe  of  Simeon  (Josh.  xix.  1,7  ;  i  Chron.  iv.  32),  and  is 
mentioned  as  south  of  Jerusalem,  to  distinguish  it  from  the 
Rock  of  Rimmon  (Rumman)  in  the  territory  of  Benjamin 
(Jud.  XX.  45,  47),  and  the  town  of  Rimmon  (now  Rummaneh) 
in  Galilee  (Josh.  xix.  10,  13). 

I      While  the  whole  country  of  Judea  is  thus  represented  as 

'  sunk  to   the   level   of  the  Arabah,   the   city   of  Jerusalem    is 

represented  as   exalted,-  and   as  firmly  dwelling   upon .  that 

'  See  the  article  Arabah  in  Smith's  IhhUcal  Dictiouary,  and  the  description 
given  of  its  lower  portion,  but  not  of  that  exchisivcly,  in  Prof.  E.  I'ahner's  Desert 
of  the  Exodus. 

"  HDN")  may  be  regarded  as  fiom  a  veil)  DX"I  =  D-'I"1,  from  whence  DX1,  the 
buffalo,  and  riD-IS").  a  proper  name  (Gen.  xxii.  24).  So  ("le.senius  and  Fiirst.  Or 
it  maybe  considered  with  Ilitzig,  Olshausen,  Gr.  §  233  </,  Botlchcr,  §  1147  C.  /', 
as  a  lengthened  form  of  n)p"J  from  D-1"l.  Compare  £^'X"^  for  t^^  (2  Sam.  xii. 
1,4),  DXf^  for  D|^,  (llos.  x.  14,  etc.),  Ges.  §  72,  rem.  I.  Fiu'st,  in  his  IVorterb., 
considers  '")  here  to  be  a  proper  name,  "  Jerusalem  and  Ranvah  (which  he  supposes 
to  have  been  a  town  of  importance  in  the  time  of  Zcchariali)  sliall  be  fruitful  as  the 


Ch.xiv.  lo.]  "  THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.      493 

which  was  under  it, — that  is,  on  the  ground  on  which  it  was 
built.  The  passage  in  Jer.  xxxi.  2)^,  was  plainly  in  the  pro-/ 
phet's  mind,  where  the  Lord  promises  that  the  city  should 
be  built  from  the  tower  of  Hananeel  unto  the  corner  gate. 
Keil,  therefore,  considers  that  Zechariah's  object  in  adding 
this  clause  when  speaking  of  the  elevation  of  the  entire  city, 
in  its  extent  as  mentioned  by  Jeremiah,  was  to  describe  the 
whole  city  as  destined  to  be  recovered  from  its  ruins,  and 
built  upon  its  base  in  all  its  extent  as  before. 

The  elevation  of  the  city  predicted    by  Zechariah  is  the 
same  as   the  exaltation  of  the   mountain    of  the   house    of 
Jahaveh  above  the   hills,    spoken   of   by  Isaiah    and  Micah/ 
(Isa.  ii.  2  ;  Mic.  iv.  i),  or  the  construction  of  that  city  which:, 
was  seen  by  Ezekiel  upon  a  very  high  mountain  (chap.  xl.  2).  I 
No  actual  physical  elevation  of  Jerusalem  or  depression    of 
the  country  around  is  signified.     If  such    a    sinking  of  the 
country  were  to  be  understood   in  all  its  literality,  and  the 
district  named  to  subside  by    some  volcanic  action    to   the 
level  of  any  portion  of  the   Arabah,  the  whole  land  would 
be   submerged    by  the   waters   of    the    Mediterranean.     All  } 
that  is  signified   by  such  language   is    that  Jerusalem   is  to   1 
be    the   centre  of   the  kingdom  of   God.     The  place  where 
Jahaveh  rests  and  is  enthroned  must  needs  be  glorious,  and, 
therefore,  Jerusalem  will  be  glorious  when  Jahaveh  displays 
his  glory  there  (Isa.  xi.  10,  Ix.  13).     In  Dan.  ii.  35,  the  stone 
which    represents   the    Messianic  kingdom  becomes  a  great 
mountain,  and  fills  the  whole  earth.     Accordingly,  Zechariah 
describes  the  holy  city  as  elevated  above  the  whole  land  of 
Judah,  in  order  that  all  the  nations  might  be  drawn  to  worship 

valley  of  the  Jordan,  and  inhabited."  In  his  supposed  reference  to  the  fertility  of 
the  Arabah  he  seems  mistaken  (see  above,  p.  492).  His  translation  is  opposed  to 
the  accentuation  and  has  nothing  to  recommend  it.  Chambers  notes  that  Fiirst  has 
in  his  new  German  version  returned  to  the  old  interpretation  ;  but  this  is  a  mistake, 
as  Arnheim,  and  not  Fiirst,  was  the  translator  of  Zechariah,  if  the  German  version 
edited  by  Zunz  be  referred  to. 


494  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROniECIES.         [Ch.  xiv.  10. 

the  God  of  Israel,  "the  God  of  the  whole  earth  shall  he  be 
called"  (Isa.  liv.  5).  The  mountains  of  Judaea  are  regarded 
in  the  eye  of  the  prophet  as  hindrances  in  the  way  of  this 
consummation,  and,  therefore,  they  were  to  be  levelled,  not 
only  that  Jerusalem  itself  might  be  exalted,  but  also  that  the 
streams  of  living  water  might  flow  forth  from  thence  (Reinke) 
to  fructify  the  land  of  Israel,  and  thereby  blessings  might 
be  bestowed  upon  the  nations. 

"  The  natural  situation  of  Jerusalem,"  remarks  Hengsten- 
berg,  "  forms  the  starting  point  here.  .  .  .  All  around 
are  higher  hills.  This  external  position  of  Jerusalem  was 
also  regarded  by  the  writer  of  Psalm  cxxv.  (verse  2)  with 
the  eye  of  a  theologian.  But  whilst,  in  his  view,  the  moun- 
tains round-  about  Jerusalem  were  symbols  of  the  protec- 
tion of  God,  to  Zechariah  the  comparative  height  of  Jeru- 
salem was  a  symbol  of  the  depressed  condition  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  under  the  Old  Testament." 

The  limits  of  Jerusalem  mentioned  by  Zechariah  are  "from 
the  gate  of  Benjamin  to  the  place  of  the  former  gate,  even  to 
the  comer  gate,  and  from  the  tower  of  Hananeel  to  the  wine 
presses  of  the  king."  These  Hmits  cannot  be  positively 
ascertained.  The  gate  of  Benjamin  was  that  which  looked 
towards  the  territory  of  Benjamin  (Jer.  xxxvii.  13,  xxxviii.  7), 
and  was,  therefore,  in  the  direction  of  Ephraim.  It  was 
probably  the  same  as  the  gate  of  Ephraim  mentioned  in 
connexion  with  the  corner  gate  (2  Kings  xiv.  13  ;  2  Chron. 
xxv.  23),  and  in  connexion  with  the  tower  of  Ilananccl  (Neh. 
xii.  39),  not  far  from  the  present  Damascus  gate,  if  it  be  not 
identical  with  it.  There  is  little  to  surprise  us  in  the  fact 
that  Zechariah  should  call  this  "the  gate  of  Benjamin,"  while 
Nehemiah  speaks  of  it  as  "  the  gate  of  Ephraim."  For  if 
the  two  were  identical,  which  is  very  probable,  the  gate  must 
have  been  known  under  both  names  before  the  Captivity, 
and  was  therefore  called   by  both  after  the  Restoration.     In 


Ch.xiv.  lo.]  "THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.T.  LIGHT.      495 

order  to  justify  such  a  statement  being  treated,  with  Pressel, 
as  a  presumption  against  the  authorship  of  the  prophecy  by 
the  post-exiHan  Zechariah,  we  should  be  able  first  to  de- 
monstrate that  the  two  gates  are  not  identical. 

The  expression  rendered  in  our  A.  V.  "  the  first  gate,"  may 
be  also  translated  "  the  oldest  gate  "  or  "  the  outermost  gate." 
The  translation  "  first  gate"  is  preferred  by  Hitzig  and  Ewald, 
who   consider  that   it  was  so  termed   in  the   sense   of  "  the 
former  gate,"   i.e.  that  which  was  destroyed.     In  defence  of 
this  signification,  Hitzig  appeals    to  several   passages  (Exod. 
xxxiv.  i;  2  Kings  i.  14;  2  Chron.  iii.  3;  Jer.  xi.  10).    But  these 
passages  cannot  be  regarded  as  conclusive  proofs  that  the  nu- 
meral has  such  a  meaning.     Hitzig  thinks  that  there  was  no 
gate  of  that  name  then  existing,  but  that  the  one  which  the 
prophet  refers  to  was  identical  with  "  the  corner  gate"  named 
immediately   afterwards,    at   which    Uzziah    built    a    tower 
(2  Chron.  xxvi.  9),  and  that  the  old  name  was  added  because 
the  tower  was  no  longer  standing,  and  every  one  did  not  know 
that  "the  tower  of  the  corner"  had  stood  there.     The  expres- 
sion "  into  the  place  of  the  first  gate  "  seems  to  indicate  that 
the  gate  itself  was  indeed  not  in  existence  in  the  days  of  the 
writer.      The    "  oldest "    gate  would    be   a   rather   indefinite 
signification,  and  we  can  hardly  suppose  that  a  particular  one 
was  known  by  such  a  designation.     Hence  Kohler  and  others 
prefer  to  regard  it  as  "the  outermost  gate,"  the  first  counting 
from  the  east,  probably  identical  with  the  T\'y^\  "l^ti^,  the  gate 
of   the  Altstadt,   or  old   city,  mentioned  together  with  the 
gate  of  Ephraim  in  Neh.  xii.  39.^    The  limits  thus  far  defined 
the    breadth    of  one    side  of  the    city,   the    starting    point 
being  from  the  gate  of  Ephraim  in  the  middle,  first  in  the 
direction   of  the  "  first    gate,"  and    then    from    the    gate  of 

'  So  also  Thenius  in  the  Anhang  on  Das  vorexilische  yenisalem  mid  dcssen 
Tcmpd,  appended  to  the  first  edition  of  the  Commentary  on  the  Book  of  the  Kings, 
in  \!a&  Kurzgef.  exeg.  Hatidb.  zum.  A.T. 


496  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.    [Ch.  xiv.  lo,  ii. 

Benjamin  to  the  corner  gate.  The  breadth  of  the  city  from 
north  to  south  is  defined  as  running  from  the  tower  of 
Hananeel  to  the  royal  wine  presses.  The  tower  of  Hananeel 
formed  part  of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  in  the  days  of  Nehemiah 
(Neh.  iii.  i,  xii.  39).  The  corner  gate  is  mentioned  by  Nehe- 
miah as  the  gate  in  the  west  end  of  the  north  side  of  Jeru- 
salem (Jer.  xxxi.  38),  and  was  four  hundred  cubits  distant 
from  the  gate  of  Ephraim  (2  Kings  xiv.  13  ;  2  Chron.  xxv.  23). 
The  wine  presses  of  the  king,  which  are  not  mentioned  else- 
where, probably  lay  in  the  royal  gardens  In  the  valley  at  the 
extreme  south-east  of  Jerusalem,  near  the  junction  of  the  valley 
of  Jehoshaphat  and  the  valley  of  Hinnom  (2  Kings  xxv.  4 ; 
Jer.  xxxix.  4,  Hi.  7  ;  Neh.  iii.  15).  These  wine  presses,  being 
probably  cut  out  of  the  rock,  may  easily  have  been  in  exis- 
tence in  the  days  of  Zechariah.  Unfortunately  no  remains 
of  them  have  been  discovered  during  the  recent  explora- 
tions in  Jerusalem,  and  Lieut.  Claude  R.  Conder,  who  has 
recently  conducted  the  survey  made  under  the  auspices  of 
the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund,  has  informed  me  that  he 
knows  of  no  wine  presses  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood 
of  Jerusalem.  The  mention  of  them  is  no  proof  of  a  pre- 
exilian  date,  as  regarded  by  Bertholdt,  Rosenmuller,  Maurer 
and  Hitzig ;  but,  as  Bleek  {Stud.  u.  Krit.  p.  302)  has  rightly 
conceded,  the  name  is  used  simply  as  a  topographical  descrip- 
tion of  a  distinct  point  in  Jerusalem,  which  might  have  been 
in  use  after  the  Restoration  as  well  as  previous  to  the  exile. 

The  prophet  proceeds  next  (verse  11)  to  describe  the 
different  condition  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  newly  formed 
Jerusalem  as  contrasted  with  that  of  the  inhabitants  of  that 
city  in  other  days  :  "  And  they  shall  dwell  (proph.  perf.)  in 
her,  and  there  shall  be  no  curse  more,  and  Jerusalem  shall 
dwell  safely."  The  verb  DIH,  from  which  the  word  trans- 
lated "  curse,"  or  "  bann,"  is  derived,  seems  to  signify  "  to  cut 
off,"  "to  sunder"  (see  Mlihlau  and  Volck's  edit,  of  Gcsoiiiis' 


Ch.  xiv.  II.]  "  THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.      497 

Lexicoii),  and  the  verb  is  used  in  the  signification  of  devoting 
something  to  God  which  could  not  be  redeemed.  It  is 
specially  found  in  the  signification  of  devoting  something  to 
destruction,  e.g.  a  city,  in  which  meaning  our  A.V.  has  ren- 
dered it  by  destroy  (Deut.  ii.  34).  It  is  also  used  of  persons 
to  be  cut  off  and  devoted  to  destruction  (Exod.  xxii.  19,  E.V. 
verse  20 ;  Lev.  xxvii.  29).  Hence  the  noun  signifies  such  a 
"  consecration  "  as  would  cut  off"  a  person  or  a  thing  from 
ordinary  use,  and  make  over  that  person  or  thing  to  Jaha- 
veh.  Property,  whether  consisting  of  chattels  or  of  non- 
Israelitish  slaves,  could  thus  be  consecrated  to  Jahaveh  (Lev. 
xxvii.  28).  An  Israelite,  if  guilty  of  idolatry,  was  to  come 
under  such  "consecration,"  and  to  be  put  to  death  (Exod. 
xxii.  19,  E.V,  verse  20);  and  a  city  guilty  of  such  transgression, 
whether  Canaanite  or  Israelitish,  was  to  be  destroyed  (Deut. 
vii.  2,  xiii.  15,  16).  Such  an  act  of  "consecration,"  or  the 
fulmination  of  such  a  "  curse,"  could  only  be  performed  by 
competent  authority  after  due  examination  into  the  matter 
(Deut.  xiii.  14).  In  such  a  case  all  the  goods  of  the  city 
were  to  be  destroyed,  and  the  cattle  slain.  ,  A  milder  kind  of 
bann,  in  which  no  death  penalty  followed,  though  the  same 
verb  is  used,  is  that  spoken  of  in  Ezra.  x.  8.  God  is  said  to 
have  given  up  Israel  to  such  a  "  curse "  for  their  sin  (Isa. 
xliii.  28),  and  Malachi  records  the  Divine  threat  to  smite 
the  earth  with  such  "a  curse"  (Mai.  iii.  24,  E.V.  iv.  16).  The 
statement,  therefore,  that  "  there  shall  be  no  more  curse,"  im- 
plies that  there  should  be  no  more  any  destruction  caused  by 
God's  righteous  judgment,  or,  in  other  words,  that  there  would 
be  no  more  unrighteous  persons  to  become  objects  of  the 
Divine  anger.  A  similar  statement  is  made  in  more  simple 
terms  in  Rev.  xxii.  3,  and  is  substantially  set  forth  in  Isa. 
Ixv.  18,  ff". 

Such  is  Zechariah's  description  of  the  blessings  to  be  vouch- 
safed to  "  the  remnant  of  the  people."     In  one  sense  of  the 

K  K 


498  ZECHAKIAII    AND   HIS    PROl'IIECIES.    [Ch.  xiv.  1 1, 12; 

expression  they  should  "  not  be  cut  off  from  the  city,"  though 
in  another  sense  they  would  be  enabled  by  Divine  providence 
to  escape  therefrom  in  a  period  of  peril  and  danger.  There 
is  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that  Jerusalem  here  is  at  one 
time  to  be  taken  for  the  professing  people  who  were  so  sadly 
unfaithful,  while  that  city  at  another  time  is  used  to  express 
a  higher  ideal.  In  the  New  Testament,  true  believers,  the 
sanctified,  the  holy,  arc  in  one  sense  the  only  persons  recognised 
as  really  belonging  to  the  Church  of  Christ ;  and  yet  the 
apostles  often  use  other  language,  the  language  of  fact,  and 
denounce  such  transgressors  as  are  outwardly  in  communion 
with  the  holy,  but  on  account  of  whose  sins  judgment  must 
commence  at  the  house  of  God.  Zechariah,  moreover,  gives 
us  clearly  to  understand  that  the  character  of  Jerusalem  is  to 
be  completely  changed  at  the  close  of  this  great  day  or  period 
introduced  by  the  advent  of  Jahaveh,  even  though  that  advent 
might  not  at  once  be  perceived  by  Israel  in  general. 

Having  thus  glanced  at  the  blessings  to  be  manifested  at 
the  close  of  the  great  period  commencing  with  such  horrors, 
on  account  of  the  sin  of  Israel,  Zechariah  returns  to  give 
further  details  connected  with  the  destruction  of  the  enemies 
of  the  people  of  God.  The  destruction  of  the  foe  was  passed 
over  for  a  time  in  the  prophetic  narrative,  in  order  that  the 
wonderful  rescue  of  the  people  of  Jahaveh  from  peril  and  the 
transformation  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem  might  be  first  de- 
scribed. 

In  consequence  of  Jahaveh's  going  forth  to  fight  with  the 
nations,  a  pestilence  or  plague  would  fall  upon  all  the  peo- 
ples '  who  should  war  against  Jerusalem.     The  word  in  the 

*  As  the  word  D''Oy  is  used  here,  instead  of  DM3  as  in  verse  2,  Lange  main- 
tains that  the  nations  are  thought  of  as  made  subject  to  the  new  order  of  things, 
and  are,  therefore,  considered  as  rebels  for  carrying  on  war  against  Jerusalem.  The 
simple  change  of  one  word  for  its  synonym  does  not  justify  such  a  conclusion. 
Note  the  use  of  D^IJ  in  verse  18.  No  mention  is  made  of  the  nations  having  sub- 
mitted to  the  new  order  of  things.     The  prophet  docs  not,  up  to  verse  12,  make 


Ch.xiv.i2,i3.]  "THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.  499 

original  (HS^Q)  is  used  of  a  plague  or  pestilence  sent  forth 
from  God  (Exod.  ix.  14;  Num.  xiv.  37,  xvii.  15,  E.  V.  xvi.  50  ; 
2  Sam.  xxiv.  21),  and  also,  but  more  rarely,  of  a  defeat  in 
battle  (i  Sam.  iv.  17 ;  2  Sam.  xvii.  9).  The  enemies  are 
represented  as  stricken  with  the  plague  in  the  very  moment 
of  warfare,  as  the  Assyrian  army  was  stricken  before  Jeru- 
salem (Isa.  xxxvii.  36).^  They  are  also  depicted  as  at  the 
same  time  seized  with  a  sudden  panic,  which  creates  such  a 
tumult  among  them  that  they  turn  their  hands  against  one 
another  (verse  13).  And  lastly,  while  the  foes  are  thus  con- 
sumed by  pestilence,  stricken  with  terror,  and  engaged  in  fight- 
ing with  one  another,  Judah,  as  we  shall  see,  is  described  by 
the  prophet  as  stirred  up  to  do  valiantly  in  the  cause  of  God. 
The  plague  which  Jahaveh  would  send  upon  the  hostile 
army  was  to  be  of  a  fearful  character.  While  the  enemies 
are  in  the  act  of  standing  upon  their  feet,  engaged  in  their 
godless  warfare,  the  plague  begins  among  them,  Jahaveh 
would  cause  ^  their  flesh  to  consume  away,  their  very  eyes 
would  melt  away  in  their  sockets,  and  their  tongues  rot  in 
their  mouths  (verse  I2).3     Their  tongues  were  to  be  punishtd 

even  an  allusion  to  them,  unless  it  be  that  the  "  remnant"  fly  from  before  them, 
which  is  only  an  inference  from  verse  2.  Verse  12  is,  therefore,  most  naturally 
to  be  viewed  as  resuming  that  part  of  the  subject  which  had  been  passed  over  for 
a  time  in  the  narration. 

1  If  an  earthquake  is  spoken  of  as  accompanying  the  going  forth  of  Jahaveh  on 
this  occasion  to  punish  his  foes,  natural  phenomena  are  also  mentioned  as  accom- 
panying the  pestilence  caused  by  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh  in  the  ranks  of  the  Assyrian 
army,  for  we  read  in  Isa.  xxx.  30,  31,  that  that  pestilence  was  accompanied  by 
a  terrible  storm,  mingled  with  lightning,  thunder  and  hailstones.  Compare  our 
remarks  on  pp.  468,  ff. 

2  The  inf.  abs.  pDH  is  the  explanation  of  nSTI,  and,  therefore,  is  virtually  the 
subject,  "  and  this  will  be  the  plague,  namely,  to  consume  their  flesh."     See  Ges. 

§131.  4'^- 

^  See  Deut.  vii.  23,  where  Moses  predicts  of  the  nations  of  Canaan  that  the 
Lord  "  shall  terrify  them  with  a  great  confusion  until  they  be  destroyed,"  a  passage 
inaccurately  rendered  by  our  A.  V.  "  shall  destroy  them  with  a  mighty  destmc- 
tion  until  they  be  destroyed,"  for  there  is  no  connexion  at  all  between  the  last 
two  words,  as  there  is  between  the  first  two,  though  not,  however,  so  close  as  to 
justify  the  translation   "shall  confound  them  with  a  great  confusion."      Such  a 


500  ZECHARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.    [Ch.  xiv.  12,  13. 

because  with  them  they  had  spoken  blasphemies  against  God 
and  his  people  (comp.  Isa.  xxxvii.  6)  ;  their  eyes,  for  there- 
with they  had  spied  out  the  nakedness  of  the  city  of  God 
(Keil).  Jahaveh  would  send  that  "confusion"  (HDinD)  upon 
the  ranks  of  the  plague-stricken  foe  which  had  been  once 
threatened  against  Israel  as  a  punishment  for  sin,  together 
with  outbreaks  of  pestilence  (Deut.  xxviii.  20,  21),  which  judg- 
ment was  actually  inflicted  on  that  people  (2  Chron.  xv.  5 ; 
Amos  iii.  9),  though  a  visitation  originally  designed  to  be 
used  only  against  their  adversaries.^  Such  "  confusions  "  are 
spoken  of  as  actually  occurring  along  with  pestilences  (i  Sam. 
V.  9),  and  as  caused  by  God  in  war  (i  Sam.  xiv.  20;  Isa. 
xxii.  5),  and  in  this  passage  of  Zechariah  as  connected  with 
both.  The  consequence  of  such  confusion  among  the  foes 
would  be  seen  by  their  ranks  being  set  at  variance  with  one 
another,  as  often  happened  in  former  times  (Jud.  vii.  22  ;  i  Sam. 
xiv.  15,  20  ;  2  Chron.  xx.  23),  "  so  that  they  shall  seize  each  on 
the  hand  of  his  neighbour,  and  his  hand  (each  man's  hand) 
shall  be  lifted  up  against  the  hand  of  his  neighbour."- 

A  still  further  element  of  confusion  would  be  added  to  the 
adversaries.  When  Jonathan  gained  his  w^onderful  victory  over 
the  Philistine  garrison  at  Michmash,  there  was  a  "confusion  " 
caused  by  God  in  the  ranks  of  the  Philistines  (i  Sam.  xiv.  20), 
which  resulted,  as  here,  in   a  terrible  conflict  taking  place  in 

"  confusion"  accompanying  a  pestilence  God  had  once  sent  among  the  Philistines 
(i  Sam.  V.  9),  and  it  is  depicted  as  "  a  deadly  confusion,"  lit.  "a  confusion  of  death" 
(verse  1 1).  Our  A.  V.  have  thus  rendered  the  word  in  both  verses  by  "  destniction." 

1  The  suffix  with  the  first  noun  is  singular  used  distributively,  with  the  other  two 
nouns  the  singular  suffix  passes  into  the  plural.  Compare,  with  Hitzig,  the  second 
clause  in  Hos.  iv.  8.  p 

2  The  verb  Tv)'^  to  go  up,  to  arise,  is  often  used  of  things  witliout  life,  and  ought  to 
be  rendered  passively  be  lifted  tip,  as  Amos  iii.  5  ;  Prov.  xxvi.  9  ;  Job  xxxvi.  20.  So 
Gesenius  and  Pusey,  but  the  first  two  instances  may  be  disputed,  and  even  here  the 
verb  might  be  translated  actively.  It  is  better,  perhaps,  to  render  the  preposition 
7U  in  the  clause,  "against,"  than  to  suppose  with  Kiihler  special  reference  to  be 
made  to  the  fact  that  in  such  a  hand-to-hand  struggle  a  man  seeks  to  raise  his  hand 
above  the  hand  of  the  other.     See  crit.  comm. 


Ch.xuM3,i4]"THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.  50I 

their  own  ranks.  Those  Hebrews  who  on  that  occasion  were 
with  the  Philistines,  as  well  as  Israelites  who  had  fled  into 
the  holes  or  fastnesses  of  the  mountains,  plucked  up  courage 
when  they  saw  the  confusion  of  their  adversaries,  and  stood 
up  boldly  against  them.  Thus  in  the  picture  here  given, 
when  the  ranks  of  the  enemies  are  thinned  by  pestilence  and 
mutual  slaughter,  the  prophet  represents  the  whole  of  the 
people  of  Judah,  not  merely  those  who  had  escaped  out  of 
the  city,  but  also  those  who  were  outside  its  walls,  as  once 
more  fighting  at  Jerusalem,  or  in  its  very  streets,  against  the 
terror-driven,  plague-stricken,  God-confounded  foe. 

The  first  clause,  indeed,  of  verse  14  has  been  rendered, 
"  and  Judah  also  shall  fight  against  Jerusalem,"  a  translation 
which  is  perfectly  defensible,  as  the  verb  in  question  is 
generally  construed  with  the  preposition  which  occurs  here  in 
that  signification.  But  the  preposition  is  also  used  with  this 
verb  in  a  locative  signification.  See  the  passages  adduced  in 
the  note  on  p.  464.  The  context  of  each  passage  alone  can 
decide  which  of  the  two  renderings  ought  to  be  adopted.^ 
Ewald,  Maurer,  Umbreit,  and  others,  adopt  "  fight  against," 
following  the  Vulgate,  the  Jewish  commentators,  Luther, 
Calvin,  etc.  The  Targum  also  renders  "  even  those  of  the 
house  of  Judah  shall  the  peoples  bring  by  violence  to 
wage  war  against  Jerusalem."  But  the  LXX.  and  the  Syr. 
take  the  other  view  of  the  passage.     If  the  former  was  neces- 

1  The  construction  of  Judah  here  with  a  feminine  verb  proves  nothing,  as 
"Judah"  though  generally  construed  as  a  masculine  when  used  in  the  sense  of 
the  people,  is  often  used  in  that  signification  when  treated  as  a  feminine,  as  is 
noted  also  by  Gesenius  in  his  Thes.  Instances  of  this  are  Ps.  cxiv.  2  ;  Nah.  ii.  i 
(E.V.  i.  15)  ;  Jer.  xiv.  2,  xxiii.  6,  xxxiii.  16.  The  statement  made  by  Gesenius  in  his 
Wbrte7'buch  is  not  to  be  taken  as  universally  correct,  namely,  that  when  Judah 
signifies  the  land  of  Judsea  it  is  fern.,  and  masculine  when  it  signifies  the  people. 
The  reason  of  this  fluctuation  in  gender  arises  from  the  comparison  of  states  and 
countries  to  women,  a  comparison  which  is  used  even  when  the  people  of  a  state 
or  country  are  signified,  as  Jer.  iii.  8.  De  Dieu  translates,  "etiam,  o  Juda,  ciba- 
beris  in  Jerusalem."  This  rendering  of  the  niphal  is  against  the  usics  loquendi. 
Tremellius  and  Junius,  Marck  and  others,  also  take  the  name  as  in  the  vocative. 


502  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  xiv.  14. 

sarily  the  rendering  of  the  clause,  we  should  feel  ourselves 
constrained,  with  Hitzig  and  Lange,  to  consider  the  clause  as 
an  interpolation  from  chap,  xii.,  because  thus  interpreted  the 
passage  has  no  connexion  with  Avhat  precedes,  and  no  ex- 
planation is  afforded  of  such  a  strange  statement.  We  main- 
tain, also,  that  even  in  chap.  xii.  no  mention  is  made  of  any 
hostilities  between  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  and  such  a  thought 
would  be  peculiarly  inappropriate  in  the  present  connexion, 
introduced  as  it  would  be  without  notice  between  a  statement 
concerning  the  destruction  of  the  foe  and  the  distribution  of 
their  spoils. 

Kohler  understands  "Judah"  in  this  place  to  signify  the 
inhabitants  of  the  lowland  of  Judaea,  but  it  is  better  to  regard 
it  as  signifying  the  entire  body  of  the  people  of  Israel  who 
had  escaped  from  Jerusalem,  united  with  their  friends  outside 
its  walls.  According  to  the  description  given  in  verse  2,  with 
which  this  is  to  be  connected,  Jerusalem  is  considered  as 
entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  nations,  trodden  down  by  them. 
The  mention  of  Judah  fighting  at  Jerusalem  is  introduced  in 
order  to  show  the  new  courage  infused  into  the  people,  and 
is  absolutely  necessary  to  prepare  us  for  the  statement  made 
in  the  next  clause  of  the  verse  respecting  the  gathering 
of  the  spoil  of  the  foe.  The  camp,  or  camps  (verse  15),  for 
the  camps  of  various  nations  are  thought  of  as  round  about 
Jerusalem,  are  described  as  thoroughly  oriental  in  their 
character.  Hence  the  gold,  and  silver,  and  the  garments  in 
such  abundance  gathered  by  Judah  on  this  great  battle-field. 
Compare  the  description  of  the  camp  of  the  Syrians  spoiled 
by  the  Israelites  in  2  Kings  vii.  8. 

Inasmuch  as  the  nations  had  fallen  under  the  Divine 
curse,  their  animals  are  also  represented  as  destroyed  by 
the  pestilence — the  horses  as  well  as  their  riders  die  of  the 
{)lague,  even  the  mules,  the  camels,  and  the  asses,  and  all 
the  cattle  ;   everything  which  had    been   used    in  the  service 


Ch.xiv.  14,15.]  "THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.  503 

of  the  kingdom  of  darkness.  Such  cases  perhaps  as  that 
of  Josh.  vii.  24,  where  the  cattle  of  Achan  are  represented  as 
destroyed  along  with  himself  and  his  family,  may  have  passed 
before  the  prophet's  mind.  The  horses  may,  as  Hitzig  has 
suggested,  have  been  thought  of  jirst  as  generally  employed  in 
war;  next  the  mule  as  an  animal  used  by  the  commander- 
in-chief,  even  in  battle  (comp.  2  Sam.  xviii.  9) ;  and  lastly 
the  beasts  of  burden  (Isa.  xxi.  7).  Thus  is  the  plundering  of 
Jerusalem  by  the  nations  to  be  fully  avenged,  and  by  the  help 
of  Jahaveh,  not  by  their  own  prowess,  the  people  of  Judah  are 
represented  as  getting  the  victory  and  as  enriched  with  the 
spoil  of  their  foes. 

The  prophets  are  wont  to  represent  the  judgments  of  Jaha- 
veh denounced  against  Israel  as  destined  ultimately  to  result 
in  the  recovery  of  that  people  from  their  sin,  and  in  their 
reception  into  the  favour  of  God.  The  judgments,  too, 
which  fall  upon  the  nations  are  sometimes  represented  as 
having  a  like  effect.  For  when  the  judgments  of  Jahaveh 
are  abroad  in  the  earth,  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  learn 
righteousness  (Isa.  xxvi.  9). 

Such  is  also  here  depicted  as  the  result  of  the  victory  of 
Jahaveh  over  the  nations,  and  of  his  gracious  acts  on  behalf 
of  the  remnant  of  Judah,  under  which  name  the  entire  of  the 
people  of  Israel  must  be  understood.  "  The  entire  remnant  of 
all  the  nations  "  is  spoken  of  as  going  up  to  worship  Jahaveh, 
and  to  keep  in  conjunction  with  Israel  the  feast  of  tabernacles. 
It  is  clear  that  the  entire_of  the  nations  is  here  meant,  and 
not  merely  the  beaten  relics  of  the  army  of  the  nations 
which  had  fought  against  Jerusalem,  and  which  is  described 
as  consumed  by  pestilence,  like  the  army  of  Sennacherib,  and 
dispersed  by  the  sword  of  Jahaveh  and  his  people,  like  the 
hosts  of  Midian  in  earlier  days  (Jud.  vii.  20). 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  priest-prophet  should  next  speak 
of  the  advent  of  an  acre  when  no  distinction  should  be  made 


504  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  xiv.  i6. 

between  Israel  and  the  Gentiles,  an  age  introduced  and  con- 
cluded with  special  mercies  vouchsafed  to  Israel  intermingled 
with  judgments,  but  destined  to  close  with  Israel  and  the 
nations  keeping  the  feasts  together,  the  Gentiles  as  well  as 
the  Jews  going  up  to  Jerusalem  "  to  worship  as  a  king 
Jahaveh  of  hosts  and  to  keep  the  feast  of  tabernacles." 

Kohler  has  noticed  that  many  Jewish  commentators,  as 
Ibn  Ezra  and  Abarbanel,  consider  that  there  is  a  reference 
here  made  to  the  Messiah.^  But,  as  he  observes,  it  is  fatal  to 
this  view  that  the  Messiah  is  not  spoken  of  in  this  chapter, 
Avhile  Jahaveh  is  distinctly  mentioned  in  verse  9.  Lange 
remarks  that  the  IMcssiah,  whose  first  coming  is  so  clearly 
prophesied  in  chapter  ix.,  would  hardly  be  expected  to  disap- 
pear at  the  close  of  the  book,  but  rather  to  appear  there  in 
a  more  glorious  character.  But  the  question  is  not  whether 
the  coming  of  Jahaveh  in  this  chapter  may  not,  when  combined 
with  other  passages,  be  explained  as  identical  with  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah,  but  whether  the  prophet  himself  has  dis- 
tinctly so  represented  it.  The  answer  to  this  question  must 
be  in  the  negative. 

Nor  can  wc  venture  to  assert,  with  Lange,  that  it  is  clear 
that  the  prophet  speaks  of  all  the  members  of  the  families 
of  the  nations,  and  not  merely  the  males,  as  going  to  Jeru- 
salem. This  is  rather  too  great  a  strain  to  put  upon  the  word 
rendered  "  family,"  which  can  with  equal  propriety  be  ren- 
dered "  tribe."  The  passage  gives  no  indication  that  the  pro- 
phet contemplated  any  departure  from  Jewish  usage  in  that 
respect. 

'  They  seem  to  have  regaixlcd  the  word  kiii^i^  in  tlic  plirase  "  to  worship 
"i  nin''  "^/Ip?"  as  in  the  construct  state,  as  if  the  phrase  meant  "  to  worsliip 
the  king  of  Jahaveh,"  i.e.  him  who  was  constituted  king  by  the  decree  of  Jahaveh 
(Ps.  ii.  6).  But  this  construction  is  a  forced  one,  and  contraiy  to  the  accentuation. 
The  "]7D  must  be  regarded  as  in  the  absolute  state,  and  it  refers  to  Jahaveli,  as 
the  Targimi  has  rightly  viewed  it.  Jahaveh  is  spoken  of  "  as  a  great  king  over  all 
the  earth,"  as  well  as  "the  great  king."  The  words  might  be  rendered  here  "  to  king 
Jahaveh,  etc." 


Ch.xiv.  17.]  "  THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.       505 

The  tribes  or  families  of  the  earth  are  represented  as  going 
up  yearly  '  to  Jerusalem  for  the  feast  of  tabernacles.  Com- 
mentators are  much  divided  in  opinion  as  to  the  reason 
why  that  feast  is  specially  mentioned  by  Zechariah.  Hitzig 
thinks  that  the  writer  speaks  only  of  one  feast,  because  all 
the  nations  could  not  possibly  be  required  to  go  up  yearly 
from  all  parts  of  the  earth  to  three  feasts  in  Jerusalem.  His 
idea,  that  the  feast  of  tabernacles  was  the  only  one  which 
in  earlier  days  was  observed  at  the  central  sanctuary,  is  un- 
supported by  any  evidence.  Others  have  supposed  that  the 
feast  of  tabernacles  is  specially  mentioned  in  this  place, 
because  it  was  held  in  the  autumn,  which  is  the  season  of 
the  year  when  travelling  is  most  agreeable.  So  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia,  Theodoret,  Grotius,  Bauer,  Rosenmiiller.  Others 
have  conceived  a  deeper  meaning,  namely,  that  the  wander- 
ings of  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness  and  their  entrance 
into  the  land  of  Canaan  represented  the  redemption  through 
Christ  and  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles  into  the  blessings 
of  the  Church  of  Christ  {Calmet,  Hesselberg,  and  nearly  so 
Cyrill).  Hengstenberg  and  others  think  that  the  feast  of 
tabernacles  is  specially  mentioned  because  that  feast  was 
celebrated  when  the  toilsome  journey  of  the  Israelites  through 
the  desert  was  ended,  and  that  the  feast  itself  was  a  com- 
memoration of  Israel's  sojourn  in  the  desert  (Lev.  xxiv. 
39-43).  So  when  the  Church,  composed  of  all  nations,  shall 
have  come  to  the  end  of  her  long  pilgrimage,  she  may  well 
be  represented  as  keeping  a  similar  feast  of  thanksgiving  unto 
God.  This  is  substantially  the  view  of  Jerome,  Cappellus, 
Miinster,  Dathe,  and  Kliefoth,  though  some  of  these  commen- 

^  The  phrase  which  occurs  in  this  place  is  thus  to  be  explained  :  ''TIP 
(comp.  of  IP  and  '''T)  is  used  in  the  sense  of  "as  often  as,"  in  which  it  fre- 
quently occurs.  '"1^^?  niltJ'  means  year  added  to  year,  i.e.,  every  year  as  it  joins 
itself  on  to  another  year.  See  i  Sam.  i.  7  ;  i  Kings  v.  25.  So  also  CIPIB  Ci'Tn 
'■^  month  by  month,''''  and  '131  lEi'in?  t^'IH  ''■^IP  "  as  often  as  month  (joins)  to 
its  month,  and  as  often  as  Sabbath  (joins)  to  its  Sabbath  "  (Isa.  Ixvi.  23), 


506  ZECIIARIAII   AM)    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiv.  17. 

tators  view  the  prediction  as  fulfilled  spiritually  in  the  case  of 
believers,  while  others  of  them  consider  it  to  be  a  prediction 
of  something  which  is  yet  to  come. 

Kimchi  considers  that  this  feast  is  mentioned  because  the 
victory  spoken  of  in  the  former  part  of  the  chapter  will  be 
actually  gained  at  that  time  of  the  year,  and  therefore  will 
be  celebrated  from  year  to  year  in  connexion  with  the  feast 
of  tabernacles.  We  need  not  discuss  such  an  interpretation. 
Nor  can  we  regard  the  view  of  Hezel  as  correct,  namely, 
that  the  feast  of  tabernacles  is  only  alluded  to  as  one  of  the 
feasts  to  be  kept.  This  appears  also  to  be  the  opinion  of 
Pressel,  who  thinks  the  prophet  mentions  that  feast  only  be- 
cause it  was  the  greatest  festival  of  joy  celebrated  by  Israel  ; 
and  because  the  festival  which  commemorated  the  establish- 
ment of  God's  rule  over  earth  would  naturally  be  celebrated 
with  gladness  and  rejoicing. 

The  feast  of  tabernacles  was  not  merely  a  feast  in  which 
Israel  recalled  to  mind  the  mercies  which  God  granted  to 
them  in  the  wilderness  or  in  their  entrance  into  Canaan,  but 
was  mainly  a  harvest  festival,  celebrated  when  the  harvest 
had  been  completely  gathered  in  (Exod.  xxiii.  16;  Lev.  xxiii. 
39-43;  Deut.  xvi.  13-15).  It  was  therefore  a  festival  in 
which  all  the  nations  of  the  world  might  well  join  together 
in  grateful  thanksgiving  to  God  for  the  blessings  of  nature, 
which  in  the  days  of  darkness  they  had  too  often  sought  from 
vanities  of  their  own  devising  (Zech.  x.  i,  2;  Jer.  xiv.  22). 
This  is  the  view  of  Kohler,  and  it  harmonizes  with  the  state- 
ment in  the  next  verse,  in  which  the  prophet  says  that  any 
neglect  in  the  celebration  of  this  festival  would  be  followed 
by  the  withdrawal  of  the  rain  which  was  needed  for  the 
harvest  (verse  18).  The  festival  was  also  that  of  the  wine 
harvest,  and  wine  is  often  employed  as  a  symbol  of  higher 
joys. 

It  is  clear,  from  the  mention  made  of  all  the  families  of  the 


Ch.xiv.  17,  iS.]  "  THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.  507 

earth  going  up  to  the  feast  of  tabernacles  in  Jerusalem,  that 
the  words  of  the  prophet  are  not  designed  to  be  taken 
literally.  Their  literal  fulfilment  would  be  impossible.  The 
impossibility  will  appear  more  glaring  if  the  closing  portion 
of  Isaiah  be  borne  in  mind,  where  the  Gentiles  are  said  to  go 
up  to  worship  at  Jerusalem,  not  merely  at  one  but  at  all  the 
festivals,  and  even  on  the  new  moons  and  Sabbaths.  A  con- 
siderable time,  moreover,  is  contemplated  by  Zechariah  as 
elapsing  before  all  flesh  is  brought  thus  to  worship  the  Lord, 
and  occasional  exceptions  on  the  part  of  the  nations  in  the 
performance  of  this  duty  are  considered  possible.  Though 
he  represents  "  the  nations "  as  brought  into  covenant  with 
Jahaveh,  the  sin  of  apostasy  is  not  regarded  as  impossible, 
though  it  would  be  visited  with  certain  punishment. 

The  rain,  the  cessation  of  which  is  mentioned  as  the 
judgment  wherewith  Jahaveh  should  punish  the  apostate 
nations,  is  evidently  the  "  early  rain,"  which  generally  falls  in 
Palestine  shortly  after  the  harvest  time,  about  the  end  of 
October  and  the  beginning  of  November.  Hence  the  use  of 
the  article  in  verse  17  (Dti^jn).  The  withholding  of  rain  in 
the  days  of  the  theocracy,  was  one  of  the  ways  by  which  God 
was  wont  to  punish  idolatry  and  apostasy  (comp.  i  Kings 
xvii.,  xviii.). 

The  translation  of  verse  18  presents  some  difficulties.  The 
rendering  of  our  A.  V.  is  no  doubt  incorrect,  "  and  if  the 
family  of  Egypt  go  not  up,  and  come  not,  that  have  no  rain, 
etc."  It  implies  that  the  prophet  refers  to  a  supposed  fact  in 
the  physical  geography  of  that  country,  which  is  not  the  case. 
The  most  natural  translation  of  the  clause  is,  "  and  if  the 
family  of  Egypt  go  not  up  and  come  ^  (to  Jerusalem),  there 


^  The  participle  is  here  used,  as  is  shown  by  the  tone  on  the  ultimate.  Ewald 
considers  tlae  participle  is  chosen  simply  for  the  sake  of  change,  and  must  be  ex- 
plained as  equivalent  to  the  imperf.  preceding,  just  as  in  chap.  xiii.  3,  4,  the  infini- 
tives are  used  for  the  same  purpose.      But  see  crit.  comm. 


508  ZFXIIARIAH   AND    IIIS    PROPHECIES.    [Ch.  xiv.  i8, 19. 

(there  shall  be)  no  (rain)  upon  them,  there  will  be  the  plague 
with  which  Jahaveh  will  smite  the  nations,  who  do  not  come 
up  to  the  feast  of  tabernacles/'  This  is  perhaps  the  best  view 
to  take  of  the  passage,  though  the  reading  of  the  LXX.  has 
considerable  support,  which  omits  one  of  the  negatives  and 
thus  obtains  the  sense,  "and  if  the  tribe  of  Egypt  does  not  go 
up  nor  come,  the  plague  will  be  upon  them  with  which  Jaha- 
veh will  smite  all  the  nations,  etc."  1  Hitzig,  with  Bunsen 
and  Lange,  render  the  passage  interrogatively,  "  and  if  the 
family  of  Egypt  will  not  go  up  and  will  not  come,  will  then 
the  plague  not  fall  upon  them,  with  which  Jahaveh  smites 
the  heathen  which  will  not  go  up  in  order  to  keep  the  feast 
of  tabernacles  ? "  Verse  19  must  in  this  case  be  regarded  as 
giving  an  emphatic  answer  to  this  question,  and  affirming 
that  the  plague  would  assuredly  fall  upon  all  transgressors 
without  exception. 

^  Inverse  17,  instead  of  the  phrase  "and  the  rain  shall  not  be  upon  them," 
the  LXX.  have  Kal  odroi  e/ceiVots  TrpoffTedr^crovTai,  "and  these  shall  be  opposed  to 
those,"  reading  perhaps,  as  Kohler  has  suggested,  Dt^'ll3  VH''  Dn"'7y  n?X1 
where  the  Vulg.,  as  well  as  the  Greek  versions  of  Aq.,  Symm.  and  Theod.,  support 
the  reading  of  the  Hebrew.  In  verse  18  the  LXX.,  followed,  of  course,  by  the 
Arab.,  read  koI  iirl  Toijrois  ^crrai  ij  tttuxtis,  thus  omitting  the  third  X7  and  con- 
necting the  Dn  vy  with  the  following  sentence.     Similarly  the  Syr.,  which  has 

j2jj  ez'eu,  also,  in  place  of  the  N?.  This  reading  is  approved  by  Dathe, 
Umbreit,  and  Ewald,  and  would  simplify  the  passage.  But  it  is  the  more  sus- 
picious on  that  account.  Six  Hebrew  MSS.  support  this  reading,  two  of  them  with 
the  LXX.  simply  omitting  the  S?,  while  four  omit  N?1  altogether.  The 
difficulty  of  the  present  text  is  not  that  we  have  to  supply  after  DHvI^  X?1  the 
two  latter  words  of  the  phrase  occurring  in  the  previous  verse,  Dn*!T  N^l 
D'J'jn  n^rT",  which  is  quite  natural,  but  that  one  feels  the  want  of  somesuch 
word  as  ONT,  this,  before  the  substantive  verb,  as  in  verse  19.  Tiie  Targ. 
paraphrases,  "  the  Nile  will  not  increase  (pD^.  lit.  ascend)  for  them."  Vulg.  has 
"nee  super  eos  erit  (evidently  iiitbcr  is  to  be  supplied)  sed  erit  ruina,  etc."  Hitzig's 
translation  is  ingenious,  but  N?1  can,  as  Kohler  notes,  scarcely  be  used  in 
the  beginning  of  the  apodosis  of  a  question.  Exod.  viii.  22  would  hardly  war- 
rant this  translation  here,  while  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  Ezek.  xvi.  56  is  to  be 
rendered  interrogatively,  with  Ilcngst.  and  Hitzig,  and  not  as  a  simple  statement 
of  fact,  as  Rosenmiiller,  Ewald,  and  Schroeder  regard  it.  Venema  suggested  long 
ago  that  this  passage  in  Zech.  might  be  taken  interrogatively,  though  he  rightly 
considers  it  harsh. 


Ch.xiv.i8, 19.] "THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.  509 

The  mention  of  Egypt  in  this  passage  must  not  be  regarded, 
as  Bleek,  Berthold,  von  Ortenberg,  Knobel  and  others  have 
viewed  it,  as  an  indication  that  the  author  Hved  in  pre- 
exilian  times  when  pohtical  differences  existed  between  that 
country  and  Judah.  The  pohtics  of  Egypt  previous  to  the 
exile  were,  as  Pressel  notes,  of  considerably  less  importance 
to  Judah  than  those  of  Assyria  and  Babylon,  and,  therefore, 
Egypt  would  scarcely  be  thought  of  by  a  pre-exilian  writer 
as  the  principal  enemy  of  God's  people.  The  most  probable 
interpretation  of  the  fact  is  that  put  forward  by  Cyrill,  and 
adopted  by  Marck  and  Ewald,  namely,  that  the  writer  re- 
fers to  the  old  hostility  between  Egypt  and  Israel,  which 
existed  from  the  time  of  the  exodus.  Nor  must  Egypt,  as  has 
been  suggested,  be  viewed  as  a  designation  of  the  Gentiles 
in  general,  or  the  opinion  of  Venema  be  followed,  who  con- 
siders that  that  country  is  specially  mentioned  because  many 
Jews  lived  in  Egypt,  and  had  synagogues  there,  and  a  temple 
was  built  there  in  later  days  by  Onias.  Egypt  would  thus 
be  regarded  as  a  country  which  had  opportunities  of  learning 
the  ways  of  God,  and  hence  peculiarly  culpable  in  case  of 
disobedience.  The  interpretation  is  a  strange  one,  because 
the  temple  in  Egypt  was  not  built  by  Onias  till  B.C.  149,  and'  ?:'C 
Venema  is  not  to  be  classed  among  those  scholars  who  have'p.,  ,>« 
called  in  question  the  authenticity  of  the  book  of  Zechariah.^  ■*"^- 

The  view  of  Kohler  is  peculiar.  He  considers  the  prophet 
to  refer  to  an  objection  which  some  one  might  in   mockery 

^  Among  those  interpretations  which  are  now  exploded  is  that  of  Grotius,  who 
explains  "  the  tribe  of  Egypt "  as  referring  to  the  Jews  scattered  in  Egypt,  who 
went  into  that  land  with  Onias,  and  erected  the  temple  referred  to  above,  Grotius 
understood  the  expression,  "all  nations,"  used  in  verse  19,  to  refer  to  the  dis- 
persed Jews.  This  is  quite  contrary  to  the  usage  of  that  phrase.  Bauer,  also 
refers  the  expression  "the  families  of  the  earth  "  to  the  families  living  upon  Jewish 
soil,  though  he  does  not  agree  with  Grotius  in  his  exposition  of  verse  18.  But  the 
expression  "  families  of  the  earth  "  evidently  means  the  Gentiles,  and  not  merely 
Jewish  families,  as  in  chap.  xii.  12.  See  the  use  of  that  expression  in  Amos  iii.  2  ; 
and  also  in  Ezek.  xx.  32. 


510  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS    rROPIIECIES.     [Ch.  xiv.  iS,  19. 

adduce  against  the  statement  that  God  would  punish  the  re- 
calcitrant nations  by  sending-  them  no  rain.  Such  a  scoffer 
might  inquire  liow  such  a  penalty  could  be  inflicted  on  the 
Egyptians,  inasmuch  as  the  fertility  of  their  land  did  not  de- 
pend on  the  rain  or  showers  from  heaven,  but  on  the  rise  of 
the  waters  of  the  Nile.  Against  such  an  objector  the  prophet 
emphasizes  the  statement  that  evxMi  the  Egyptians  would  be 
punished  with  the  same  plague  as  the  other  nations.  For  the 
prophet  may  have  been  fully  aware  that  the  rise  of  the 
waters  of  the  Nile  depended  entirely  on  the  fall  of  rain  in 
the  highlands  of  the  countries  south  of  Egypt.  Ikit  this 
interpretation  seems  too  artificial.^ 

The  most  natural  translation  of  the  following  verse  (verse 
19)  is  :  "This  will  be  the  punishment  of  Egypt  and  the  pun- 
ishment of  all  the  nations  which  do  not  go  up  to  keep  the  feast 
of  tabernacles."  The  word  JlJ^IDn,  which  properly  means  sin, 
signifies  also  sin  in  its  effects  as  bringing  piinisJuncnt  in  its 
train.  Such  is  the  natural  meaning  of  the  sentence.  Com- 
pare Isa.  V.  18  ;  Num.  xxxii.  18.  Sin  and  punishment  are 
always  closely  connected.  This  is  .substantially  the  view  of 
Ewald,  Keil,  and  Kohler.  Nor  is  there  any  essential  difference 
between  Ewald's  translation,  "  this  will  be  the  punishment  of 
Egypt,"  and  that  of  Hcngstenberg,  "  this  will  be  the  sin  of 
Egypt,"  which  he  explains  as  sin  looked  upon  in  the  light  of 
its  consequences.  The  meaning  of  the  translation  "  sin-offer- 
ing," adopted  by  others,  as  Hitzig  and  Lange,  is  not  very 
different,  for  punishment  for  sin  is  in  that  case  figuratively 
regarded  as  the  offering  for  sin  ;  though  perhaps  from  a  theo- 

*  The  veiy  fact  of  such  a  plague  being  described  as  the  pccuh'ar  punishment 
of  the  nations  for  not  going  up  to  Jerusalem,  proves  that  the  prophecy  is  not  to  be 
regarded  as  absoluiely  literal.  For,  as  Lange  observes,  if  the  family  of  Egypt 
were  to  be  punished  by  the  deficiency  of  water,  the  Abyssinians,  even  though 
they  attended  the  feast  at  Jerusalem,  would  have  to  suffer  at  the  same  time,  as 
Egypt  can  only  suffer  from  a  scarcity  of  water  in  connexion  with  all  the  lands  to 
the  south  of  that  countiy. 


Ch.xiv.i9,20.]"THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.  51I 

logical  standpoint  this  latter  translation  is  objectionable.  It 
might,  however,  be  explained  in  an  unobjectionable  sense. 
Others  have  suggested  that  the  meaning  of  the  passage  is, 
"  this  is  the  sin  ;"  and  explain  it  as  signifying  that  the  chief 
or  only  sin  of  the  age  referred  to  would  consist  in  such  a 
refusal  to  keep  the  feast  of  tabernacles  at  Jerusalem.  But 
this  gives  a  very  poor  sense. 

The  last  verses  of  the  chapter  do  not  present  any  difficulty. 
They  are  decisive  against  the  opinion  advocated  by  some  that  v 
Jewish  observances  and  rites  are  to  be  restored  at  the  end  of 
the  Christian  dispensation.  No  clearer  statement  than  that 
found  in  these  verses  could  be  made  to  show  that  eveiything 
peculiarly  Jewish  should  pass  away.  "  In  that  day  there  will 
be  upon  the  bells  of  the  horses  '  'holiness  to  Jahaveh.'  "  For 
the  mitre  of  the  high  priest  had  upon  it  a  plate  of  gold  witli 
this  very  inscription  (Exod.  xxviii.  $6,  38,  xxix.  6,  see  p.  62)  ; 
and  if  the  bells  on  the  horses'  trappings  were  in  future  to 
have  such  inscriptions,  they  would  be  regarded  as  being  as 
sacred  as  that  mitre.  It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  horses 
as  well  as  other  animals  were  adorned  with  bells  in  the  east 
as  well  as  in  the  west ;  sometimes,  instead  of  bells,  small 
pieces  of  metal  were  used,  which  striking  against  each 
other  gave  forth  a  tinkling  sound.     The  horses,  which  were 

^  There  is  no  uncertainty  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  DlP^'O,  though  it 
only  occurs  in  this  passage,  as  the  signification  of  the  root  is  clear,  and  another  word 
formed  from  it  (nJPJi'P)  is  used  in  the  sense  of  cymbals,  so  called  from  their  sound. 
Yet  the  LXX.  render  it  by  xct^"'<5s,  Vulg.  frenum,  bit  or  bridle,  and  so  Syr. ;  while 
Aquila  and  Theod.  give  it  fSvdos,  depth,  regarding  it  as  identical  with  n?VP 
Zech.  i.  8.  Symm.  has  irepiiraTo^  crvaKios,  shady  going,  either  connecting  it,  as  Aq. 
and  Theod.,  with  the  word  in  Zech.  i.  8,  or  with  7^*,  shade.  These  latter  render- 
ings give  no  sense.  Jerome  notes,  "  quod  cum  ab  Hebrseo  qusererem  quid 
significaret,  ait  mihi  non  debere  nos  legere  mesidoth  sed  mesaloth,  quod  signi- 
ficat  phaleras  equorum,  et  o)  natiim  bellicwu.  The  Targ.  according  to  the  Lond. 
Polygl.  has '□  n5'1"l?>  'Ci\&coverlngs  of  the  horses,  but  de  Lagarde  edits  'D  DIIIS, 
more  distinctly  the  saddle.  All  these  translations,  as  well  as  that  of  Luther,  which 
is  derived  from  the  Targ.,  namely,  Riistung,  trappings  or  armo2ir,  are  destitute  of 
any  foundation.  Schegg  incorrectly  supposes  that  the  ornaments  upon  the  bridles 
are  alluded  to. 


512  ZECHARIAII   AND    HIS    rROPIIECIES.     [Ch.  xiv.  20,21. 

looked  upon  with  disfavour  in  the  Pentateuch,  are  stated 
by  Zechariah  as  destined  "  in  that  day "  to  be  ornamented 
with  the  holy  inscription,  formerly  reserved  for  the  forehead 
of  the  high  priest.  The  horse,  so  often  employed  for  pur- 
poses of  war  and  luxury,  was  to  be  consecrated  to  the  service 
of  Jahaveh  ;  that  which  was  used  for  the  most  profane 
services  was  to  become  most  holy.  The  same  thought  is 
expressed  under  other  symbols  in  Jer.  xxxi.  40,  where  "the 
whole  valley  (formerly  full)  of  the  dead  bodies  and  of  ashes, 
and  all  the  fields,  unto  the  brook  of  Kedron,"  are  predicted 
as  becoming  "  holiness  to  Jahaveh." 

The  Jewish  commentators  (Rashi,  Kimchi,  Ibn  Ezra) 
have  widely  mistaken  the  import  of  this  passage  in  Zecha- 
riah. They  were,  as  Hengstenberg  and  Reinke  have  re- 
marked, led  away  from  the  natural  interpretation  by  a  clear 
perception  of  the  fact  that  such  an  interpretation  involved 
the  admission  of  an  abrogation  of  the  ceremonial  law. 
Some  Christian  critics,  as  Grotius,  have,  however,  adopted 
their  view  of  the  passage.  Kimchi's  explanation  will  suffice 
as  an  example  of  such  interpretations.  He  considers  the 
text  to  signify  that  the  bells  of  the  horses  were  to  be 
rendered  holy  to  the  Lord  by  being  transformed  into  pots 
for  the  temple  service.  Kimchi  notes  that  the  horses  were 
explained  by  some  expositors  to  be  those  which  perished 
in  the  plague  (verse  1 5),  so  that  their  bells  must  be  supposed 
to  stand  (a  part  for  the  whole)  for  the  entire  of  the  trap- 
pings (which  is  the  view  of  Grotius).  Other  interpreters 
understood  them  to  be  the  horses  of  the  pilgrims  who  are 
to  go  up  year  by  year  to  keep  the  feast  of  tabernacles. 
Such  an  explanation,  however,  is  not  in  harmony  with  the 
following  clauses,  which  show  that  the  meaning  of  the  pro- 
phet is  that  everything  should  be  holy,  and  all  ceremonial 
distinctions  as  regards  external  sanctity  should  be  abolished 
for  ever. 


Ch.xiv.20,2i.]"THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.  5  13 

Marck  and  others  understand  the  passage  differently. 
They  explain  its  statements  by  the  circumstance  that  things 
were  often  marked  with  the  names  of  idols.  Curtius 
(iii.  3)  speaks  of  the  chariot  of  Jupiter  (or  Ormuzd)  among 
the  Persians  as  having  on  it  figures  of  the  gods  ;  and, 
moreover,  it  was  the  custom  among  the  Persians  to  write 
on  the  bells  of  their  horses  the  names  of  their  gods.  Ac- 
cording to  this  view,  the  sense  of  the  passage  would  be 
that  the  day  would  come  when  the  nations  would  consecrate 
all  those  things  to  Jahaveh  which  before  were  consecrated 
to  their  idols.  This  explanation,  though  not  so  unnatural 
as  that  given  by  Kimchi,  does  not  harmonise  with  the 
conclusion  of  the  verse,  where  the  very  pots  in  the  house 
of  Jahaveh  are  spoken  of  as  becoming  as  holy  as  the  bowls 
before  the  altar.i 

The  pots  in  the  temple,  alluded  to  by  Zechariah,  were  no 
doubt  those  in  which  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifices  was  cooked 
for  the  priests  and  the  laity  to  eat  (i  Sam.  ii.  14  ;  2  Chron. 
XXXV.  15),  which  were  therefore  employed  not  only  for  sacred 
but  for  ordinary  culinary  purposes.  Such  pots  were  to  be- 
come, in  the  time  spoken  of  by  the  prophet,  as  holy  as  the 
bowls  before  the  altar  (Zech.  ix.  15),  from  which  the  blood 
of  the  sacrifices  was  sprinkled  upon  the  altar  of  burnt  offer- 
ings (Num.  iv.  14). 

But  the  priest-prophet  announces  even  more  than  this;  not 
merely  should  all  the  pots  in  the  Lord's  house  be  considered 
as  holy  as  the  bowls  before  the  altar,  but  even  "  every  pot 
in  Jerusalem  and  in  Judah  shall  be  holiness  to  Jahaveh  of 

^  Dr.  Pusey  has  suggested  that  perhaps  the  comparison  made  here  between  the 
bells  of  the  horses  and  the  plate  on  the  high  "priest's  forehead  was  suggested  by 
"  the  bells  on  the  high  priest's  dress;  not  the  lamina  only  on  his  forehead,  but 
bells  (not  as  his,  which  were  part  of  his  sacred  dress),  bells  altogether  secular, 
should  be  inscribed  with  the  self-same  title,  whereby  he  himself  was  dedicated 
to  God."  The  fact  that  a  different  word  (jI'Dy?)  is  used  when  the  bells  on 
the  robe  of  the  high  priest  are  spoken  of  does  not  exclude  this  view.  See  Exod. 
xxviii.  33,  xxxix.  25,  26. 

L    L 


514  ZECHARIAIi  AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.     [Gi.xiv.  20,21. 

hosts,  and  all  those  who  sacrifice  shall  come  and  take  of 
them  (the  prep,  in  DHip  is  partitive,  i.e.,  shall  take  one  or 
more  of  them  as  required),  and  shall  cook  therein,"  to  wit,  the 
flesh  required  by  the  numerous  persons  who  should  partake 
of  the  sacrifices  (comp.  2  Chron.  xxix.  34),  for  all  the  utensils 
of  the  Lord's  people  should  be  holy.  In  other  words,  the 
difference  between  holy  and  profane  should  cease  to  exist  b}- 
everything  becoming  holy,  nothing  common  or  unclean  (comp. 
Acts  X.  15,  28) ;  and  the  beautiful  thought  expressed  in  dif- 
ferent words  by  Ezekiel,  should  be  realized,  namely,  that  the 
whole  mountain  on  which  the  new  temple  should  stand  would 
become  a  holy  of  holies  (Ezek.  xliii.  12,  xlv.  3,  comp.  Isa.  iv.  3). 
The  Jewish  interpretation  of  this  passage,  as  given  by 
Kimchi,  is  "that  the  pots  in  the  Lord's  house  shall  be  like  the 
bowls,  that  is,  as  many  in  number,  for  the  sacrifices  shall  be 
so  many."  Such  is  also  the  rendering  of  the  Targum,  "  the 
pots  in  the  house  of  the  sanctuary  of  the  Lord  shall  be  as 
numerous  as  the  bowls  before  the  altar."  But  this  interpreta- 
tion is  manifestly  incorrect.  For  the  pots  used  for  cooking 
the  flesh  of  the  sacrifices  were  always  far  more  numerous 
than  the  bowls  on  the  altar,  used  only  for  sprinkling  the 
blood.  The  relative  holiness  of  the  several  vessels,  and 
nothing  else,  is  the  point  of  comparison.  Having  thus 
glossed  over  the  chief  difficulty,  Kimchi  could  easily  in- 
terpret verse  21  to  mean  that  the  pots  should  be  increased 
on  account  of  the  multitude  of  the  sacrificers,  and  hence 
that  the  Gentiles  should  use  the  pots  found  in  Jerusalem  and 
Judah  in  order  to  boil  the  sacrifices  of  the  peace-offerings. 
There  docs  no  doubt  seem  to  be  a  reference  made  to  the 
vast  number  of  persons  who  should  bring  their  sacrifices  to 
the  temple,  but  the  real  meaning  of  the  entire  passage  is 
that  everything  alike  should  be  holy,  and  that  all  such  dis- 
tinctions as  profane,  holy,  and  most  holy  should  completel)' 
cease  in  the  era  to  which  the  prophet  alludes. 


Ch.xiv.2i.]  "  THE  LAST  THINGS  "  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.       5  I5 

The  last  clause  of  the  verse,  "  and  there  will  be  no  Ca- 
naanite  any  longer  in  the  house  of  Jahaveh  of  hosts  in  that 
day,"  presents  no  difficulty.  The  Canaanite  has  indeed  been 
understood  to  signify  a  merchant.  For  the  Phoenicians  were 
remarkable  as  traders,  and  as  such  showed  no  respect  to  the 
religious  principles  of  the  Jews  {Neh.  xiii.  16,  20).  Grotius, 
Hitzig,  Maurer,  etc.,  take  this  view,  following  Aquila  and  the 
Vulgate,  Thus  also  the  Targ.,  "  and  there  will  not  be  any 
longer  one  plying  merchandize  in  the  house  of  the  sanctuary." 
The  word  has  this  signification  in  Job  xl.  30;  Prov.  xxxi.  24; 
etc.  The  merchants  referred  to  were  those  who  sold  pots  for 
.the  use  of  the  temple,  and  also  the  cattle  required  for  the  sacri- 
fices. Such  traders  our  Lord  drove  on  two  several  occasions 
out  of  the  temple  (John  ii.  14-16  ;  Matt.  xxi.  12,  13).  Kim- 
chi  considers  that  the  clause  signifies  that  those  who  would 
devote  their  property  to  holy  uses  would  be  so  many  that 
a  merchant  would  not  be  needed  to  sell  such  things  to  the 
pilgrims.  The  objection  to  this  interpretation  of  the  word 
is  that  there  is  no  direct  proof  of  the  existence  of  a  temple 
market  in  the  days  of  Zechariah,  though  it  is  probable  that 
such  did  exist;  and,  moreover,  there  is  no  evidence  to  show 
that  such  a  trader  was  looked  down  upon  with  contempt. 
The  latter  is,  however,  not  improbable.  Others  {Drusius,  von 
Hofmann)  think  that  the  word  means  literally  Canaanites, 
specially  the  Gibeonites  and  Nethinim,  who  were  employed 
about  the  lowest  services  in  the  temple.  Kliefoth  adopts  this 
view,  and  considers  the  prophet  to  say  that  there  would  be 
no  persons  condemned  to  perform  only  such  menial  work^ 
but  that  on  the  contrary  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  should 
enjoy  full  communion  with  Israel,  and  equal  participation  in 
God  and  his  service.  It  has  been  objected  to  this  view  that 
whatever  their  original  status,  the  Nethinim  were  actually  in 
high  favour  in  the  days  of  the  Restoration,  as  is  plain  from 
the  allusion  in  chap.  ix.  7.      Hence  the  majority,  perhaps, 


5l6  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xiv.2i. 

of  commentators,  among  whom  may  be  mentioned  Cyrill 
and  Thcodoret,  Luther  and  Calvin,  Venema,  Hcngsten- 
berg,  Ewald,  and  Kohler,  take  the  name  "Canaanite"  as  a 
symbolical  appellation  of  open  and  notorious  sinners,  under 
God's  curse,  and  devoted  to  destruction  by  the  Divine  decree, 
as  were  the  Canaanites  of  old  (comp.  Ezek.  xliv.  9 ;  Rev. 
xxi.  27).  It  is  possible,  with  Pressel,  to  combine  the  first 
and  last  interpretations,  and  to  regard  the  passage  as  de- 
scribing the  exclusion  from  the  sanctuary  of  Jahaveh  of 
those  who  traffic  in  holy  things,  and  of  the  ungodly  and  pro- 
fane. Bunsen,  who  advocates  the  former  view,  considers  that 
the  point  of  reference  is  to  the  greed  of  the  merchant- 
retailers,  the  hucksters  who  trafficked  in  such  merchandize. 
That  greed  was  just  as  likely  to  have  been  exhibited  in 
those  days  as  at  a  later  period.  Indeed,  such  a  spirit  was 
then  abroad,  as  is  evident  from  Neh,  xiii.  16,  20,  though  that 
passage  is  not  in  all  respects  a  parallel.  Traffic  in  matters 
connected  with  the  worship  of  God  was,  according  to  this 
idea,  considered  unworthy  of  the  golden  age  described  by 
Zechariah.  There  would  be  no  longer  any  need  for  the  sale 
of  pots  specially  designed  for  sacred  purposes  when  every 
one  might  use  with  acceptance  his  own  household  vessels  for 
the  service  of  the  temple.  The  objection  made  by  Bunsen  to 
the  word  "Canaanite"  being  regarded  as  an  equivalent  to  "the 
unclean"  and  "unholy,"  namely,  that  no  instance  can  be 
cited  elsewhere  of  such  a  meaning,  loses  its  force  when  we 
remember  the  frequent  reference  made  by  Zechariah  to  the 
ancient  enemies  of  Israel,  as  Egypt  and  the  Egyptians, 
whose  mention  in  the  near  context  may  have  suggested  the 
Canaanites  to  the  mind  of  the  prophet. 

It  may  be  well  at  the  close  of  our  general  survey  of  this  re- 
markable prediction  of  Zechariah  to  give  a  sketch  of  what 
we  believe  to  be  its  true  interpretation,  though  our  views  have 
not  been  obscurely  intimated  throughout  the  discussion  of 


Cii.xiv.i-2i,]"  THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.    517 

the  various  portions,  as  well  as  indicated  by  the  title  prefixed 
to  this  chapter. 

The  day  of  the  Lord  is,  as  has  been  already  seen,  not 
to  be  regarded  as  a  natural  day,  but  as  a  period  of  time  of 
an  indefinite  length.  Such  a  "  day  "  may  embrace  a  period 
of  a  longer  or  shorter  duration,  according  as  may  be  required 
by  the  nature  of  the  prophecy.  In  this  prophecy  the  period 
must  necessarily  include  years,  as  one  of  the  chief  character- 
istics of  the  streams  of  living  waters  is  that  they  should  con- 
tinue to  flow  not  only  during  the  winter  rains,  but  also  during 
the  parching  heat  of  summer.  A  period  consisting  of  sum- 
mers and  winters  is,  therefore,  expressly  included  under  the 
expression  "  m  that  day." 

Again,  the  very  means  whereby  the  Lord  is  said  to  destroy 
the  adversaries  tend  to  prove  the  "  day  "  to  be  a  lengthened 
period.  For  the  adversaries. against  whom  Jahaveh  goes  forth 
to  fight  are  not  represented  as  swallowed  up  by  a  mighty  earth- 
quake, but  as  destroyed  in  three  different  ways,  by  pestilence, 
by  internecine  conflicts  excited  by  a  heaven-sent  "  confusion," 
and  by  the  sword  of  the  people  of  Judah.  Moreover,  "  in  that 
day  "  the  conquered  nations  go  up  cheerfully  to  Jerusalem  to 
worship  Jahaveh  as  their  King  and  God,  and  do  so  "year  by 
year,"  which  fact  again  shows  that  a  lengthened  period  is  in- 
cluded, during  which  Jahaveh  is  said  to  execute  his  judgments 
upon  those  nations,  who,  notwithstanding  the  universal  know- 
ledge of  God,  prove  themselves  to  be  unthankful  and  unholy 
by  refusing  to  go  up  to  the  feast  of  tabernacles  in  Jerusalem. 

The  chapter  as  a  whole  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  history  of 
that  great  "  day,"  during  which,  as  in  that  period  described 
by  our  Lord  in  his  prophecy  of  "  the  last  things,"  wars,  pes- 
tilences, and  tumults  occur.  It  is  "a  day  of  Jahaveh,"  for 
during  its  course  the  pride  of  man  will  be  humbled,  and 
the  Lord  alone  exalted  (Isa.  ii.  17).  The  "day"  commences 
with  a  terrible  judgment  executed  on  Israel  by  the  Gentile 


5l8  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.     [Ch.xiv.1-21. 

nations,   but   closes  with  a  glorious  manifestation  of  God's 
love  to  his  chosen  people. 

The  chapter  throughout  speaks  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem 
and  of  the  literal  Israel  and  Judah.  Jerusalem  must  not  be 
regarded  as  signifying  in  one  verse  the  actual  city,  and  in 
another  the  Church  of  Christ.  But  that  city  is  viewed  ideally 
throughout  the  chapter,  and  almost  identified  w^ith  the  Jewish 
nation.  The  sorrows  inflicted  on  her  are  represented  under 
the  picture  of  a  siege  and  ultimate  capture.  The  siege  of 
Jerusalem  by  the  Romans  is  not  directly  prophesied,  though 
it  was  one  of  the  greatest  sorrows  which  were  contemplated 
in  the  prophecy, — the  solemn  winding-up  in  judgment  of 
the  old  dispensation.  The  prophet  describes  the  city  which 
was  by  name  and  profession  holy  (Isa.  Ixiv.  10)  as  given  up 
to  be  trodden  under  foot  by  the  Gentile  nations,  because  of 
its  profanity  and  because  of  the  sin  depicted  in  the  pre- 
vious chapter.  Terrible  as  was  the  judgment  inflicted  by  the 
Divine  anger,  the  Jewish  nation  was  not  to  be  cast  out  of 
the  sight  of  Jahaveh,  as  was  the  case  in  the  great  Babylonian 
captivity  (Jer.  xv.  i).  There  would  be  some  of  that  nation 
Avho  would  be  in  many  respects  unaffected  by  the  cata- 
strophe; "the  remnant  of  the  people  shall  not  be  cut  off  from 
the  city."  For  Zechariah  views  the  "  cutting  off  from  the 
city,"  not  in  its  political  but  in  its  religious  aspect,  as  a  cutting 
off  out  of  the  sight  of  the  Lord's  presence  (see  p.  462).  This 
is  a  truth  often  strangely  forgotten  by  those  who  view  the 
Jews  as  under  a  special  curse,  which  renders  them  less 
open  to  the  influences  of  the  gospel  than  other  nations.  The 
blessings  purchased  by  Christ,  and  the  grace  procured  through 
the  work  of  the  Redeemer,  are  as  freely  offered  to  the  Jews 
as  to  any  other  people,  and  were  largely  accepted  by  numbers 
of  that  nation  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era.  If  the 
apostle  speaks  of  a  portion  of  the  Jewish  nation  as  blinded 
(Rom.  xi,  7),  he  uses  the  same,  if  not  a  stronger  expression,  of 


Ch.xiv.  I-2I.]  "THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.    519 

the  Gentile  world  (2  Cor.  iv.  4).  Moreover,  Israel  as  a  nation, 
though  represented  by  the  apostle  as  given  over  in  part  to 
blindness,  is  according  to  him  only  to  remain  in  that  state 
until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  is  come  in,  when  "  all  Israel 
is  to  be  saved  "  (Rom.  xi.  25,  26). 

Meantime,  while  Jerusalem's  day  of  judgment  proceeds, 
a  refuge  is  provided  for  "  the  remnant  according  to  the  elec- 
tion of  grace,"  even  for  those  who  should  not  perish  in  the 
iniquity  of  the  city.  We  may  recall  to  mind  how,  ere  the 
great  day  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans, 
the  Jewish  Christians  were  enabled  by  Divine  Providence  to 
escape  to  Pella  in  the  mountains.  That  escape  out  of  Jeru- 
salem was  deemed  worthy  of  special  mention  by  our  Lord  in 
his  great  discourse  of  the  last  things,  and  may  well  be  here 
alluded  to,  though  we  do  not  think  that  it  is  distinctly  pre- 
dicted in  this  prophecy  of  Zechariah.  The  event  was,  how- 
ever, a  remarkable  illustration  of  the  truth  set  forth  by  the 
Old  Testament  prophet. 

Ecclesiastical  history  relates  how  special  blessings  were 
granted  to  believing  Israelites  in  the  early  days  of  Chris- 
tianity. For  a  considerable  period  all  the  great  missionaries 
to  the  nations  were  men  of  that  race.  Ways  and  means 
of  escape  have  again  and  again  been  opened  for  Jewish 
believers,  amid  the  heavy  sorrows  which  have  fallen  upon 
that  unhappy  people,  God's  favour  has  been  often  as  clearly 
manifested  to  the  believing  "  remnant,"  as  if  they  had  been 
living  in  their  holy  city  during  some  of  the  glorious  days  of 
the  theocracy.  Jewish  Christians  have  not  been  "cut  off  from 
the  city." 

That  verse  4  cannot  be  viewed  as  a  literal  prediction  has 
already  been  pointed  out.  Regarded  in  an  ideal  signification, 
it  conveys  much  precious  truth.  In  the  days  of  our  Lord,  when 
ungodliness  reigned  in  Jerusalem,  the  Mount  of  Olives  was 
specially  honoured  by  his  sacred  presence.     There  in  the  open 


520  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.     [Ch.  xiv.  1-21. 

air  Christ  taught  his  disciples  without  interruption  from  scofif- 
ing  priests  or  mocking  Pharisees.  The  Mount  of  Corruption 
was  transformed  by  his  teaching  into  a  mount  of  blessing. 
On  that  mount  he  wept  over  the  fatal  obstinacy  of  Jerusalem, 
and  pointed  out  the  way  of  escape  to  his  followers  from  the 
wrath  impending  over  the  city.  Thus  there  Avas  an  actual 
manifestation  of  Jahaveh  on  that  mountain,  and  the  glory  of 
Christ,  "  the  glory  of  the  only  begotten  son  of  the  Father, 
full  of  grace  and  truth  "  (John  i.  14)  was  exhibited  in  very 
deed  when  he  ascended  from  the  heights  of  Olivet  to  his 
Father  in  heaven.  In  an  ideal  but  most  true  sense,  as  the  feet 
of  Jahaveh  really  stood  in  that  day  on  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
so  Christ  may  be  regarded  as  guiding  and  directing  his  people 
from  that  mountain  in  the  various  difficulties  of  their  path, 
and  in  the  struggles  which  they  have  had  to  undergo  for  his 
name's  sake  (Actsi.  8-12  ;  Mark  xvi.  20).  The  great  national 
earthquake  which  removed  the  impediment  of  the  continued 
existence  of  the  "temple  made  with  hands,"  and  which 
assisted  the  Church  to  gain  the  mastery  over  the  nations,  was 
announced  by  Christ  on  that  mountain  (Matt.  xxiv.  3),  and 
his  words  of  cheer  and  love  spoken  on  that  sacred  spot 
have  consoled,  strengthened,  and  comforted  many  a  one  of 
the  house  of  Israel. 

That  Zechariah  should  have  contemplated  the  glorious 
coming  of  Jahaveh  in  the  midst  of  the  sorrow  which  he  fore- 
saw would  overwhelm  his  people  and  his  city,  is  quite  in 
accordance  with  the  progressive  nature  of  Divine  revelation. 
Nor  need  it  surprise  us,  since  a  similar  blending  together  of 
Christ's  coming  to  destroy  Jerusalem,  and  his  coming  to  judge 
the  world,  occurs  in  the  great  discourse  of  our  Lord  to  which 
reference  has  been  so  often  made. 

The  character  of  the  Messianic  dispensation  until  almost 
the  period  of  its  close  is  remarkably  characterised  as  a  period 
neither  of  perfect  day  nor  of  total  night  or  darkness.     As  we 


Ch.xiv.i-2i.]"THE  LAST  THINGS"  AS  SEEN  IN  O.  T.  LIGHT.     52 1 

have  sufficiently  explained  the  verses  alluded  to  (verses  6,  7), 
it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  our  remarks  (see  p.  485).  That 
the  Messianic  dispensation  will  close  in  light  and  glory,  and 
not  in  darkness,  is  predicted  by  St.  Paul  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  (xi.  2-12).  This  cheering  truth,  which  is  here  also 
presented,  has  been  sadly  obscured  by  the  fantastical  views 
so  often  held  regarding  the  apostasy  of  the  latter  times  and 
the  rule  of  Antichrist.  For,  as  Mede  well  remarks,  as  "  The 
Jews  expected  Christ  to  come  when  he  did  come,  and  yet 
knew  him  not  when  he  was  come  ;  because  they  had  fancied 
the  manner  and  quality  of  his  coming  like  some  temporal 
monarch,  with  armed  power,  to  subdue  the  earth  before  him  : 
So  the  Christians,  God's  second  Israel,  looked  (expected  that) 
the  coming  of  Antichrist  should  be  at  that  time  when  he  came 
indeed,  and  yet  they  knew  him  not  when  he  was  come ;  be- 
cause they  had  fancied  his  coming  as  of  some  barbarous  Ty- 
rant, who  should  with  armed  power  not  only  persecute  and  de- 
stroy the  Church  of  Christ,  but  almost  the  world  ;  that  is,  they 
looked  for  such  an  Antichrist  as  the  Jews  looked  for  a  Christ."^ 
Jerusalem,  though  viewed  in  the  commencement  of  the 
chapter  as  a  city  suffering  under  a  Divine  judgment,  is  in 
verse  8  considered  in  relation  to  the  nations  of  the  earth  as 
a  city  from  which,  at  the  appearing  of  Jahaveh,  rivers  of 
blessing  would  flow  forth  to  the  world  at  large.  We  need 
not  expatiate  on  the  well-known  truth  that  the  gospel  of 
Christ  was  first  published  in  Jerusalem,  and  from  thence 
has  gone  forth  to  the  world.  The  first  publication  of  that 
gospel  in  all  its  fulness  was  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Then 
those  streams  began  to  flow  which,  however  diverted  hither 
and  thither  in  their  course,  have  been  perennial.  The  change 
described  as  taking  place  with  respect  to  the  physical 
position  of  the  country  of  Judah,  and  the  predicted  restora- 
tion of  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  both  set   forth  under  material 

'  RIede's  Works,  p.  647;  Book  iii.  chap.  ix.  of  his  Apostasy  of  the  Latter  Times. 


522  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   rROniECIES.      [Ch.  xiv.  1-21. 

figures  the  truth  that,  important  as  has  been  the  part  which 
Jerusalem  and  the  Jewish  people  have  already  played  in  the 
past  in  the  enlightenment  of  the  nations  of  the  world,  still 
more  important  will  be  the  role  to  be  assumed  by  Israel  when 
the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  shall  have  come  in,  and  when  the 
reception  of  the  Jews  into  the  Church  of  Christ  shall  be  as 
life  from  the  dead  to  the  world  (Rom,  xi.  12). 

The  warfare  of  Jahaveh  with  the  nations  is  depicted  in  this 
prophecy  as  long,  and  as  carried  on  in  various  ways.     It  is 
not  merely  by  fire  and  sword  that  Jahaveh  is  to  plead  with 
the  nations,  as  represented  in  Isaiah  (Ixvi.   16).      Zechariah 
regards  the  warfare  of  Jahaveh  as  waged  by  pestilences  and 
divers  troubles,  nation  rising  against  nation,  and  perplexity  of 
various  kinds,  as  delineated  in  our  Lord's  discourse  (Mark 
xiii.  8,  fif.  ;  Luke  xxi.  10,  11).    The  day  of  Jahaveh  is  a  period 
of  mercy  and  judgment  combined,  but  one  during  which,  how- 
ever, mercy  prevails  over  judgment  (James  ii.  13),   and  the 
light  proves  stronger  than  the  darkness.     Sin  has  been  per- 
mitted to  act  as  the  means  of  punishing  sin,  and  nations  have 
been    punished    by  nations.     The  picture  of  the  future  has 
been  drawn  from  the  history  of  God's    past  dealings  with 
Israel ;  and  the  glorious  result  will  be,  not  a  great  victory 
of  the  kingdom   of  darkness  even   for  a  season  ; — but  after 
a  time,  it  may  be,  of  stubborn  conflict  with  evil,  in  which 
God's  people  shall  receive  greater  courage  for  the  battle  as 
the  hour  of  earth's  redemption  approaches,  "  The  kingdoms 
of  this  world  shall  become  the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord  and 
his  Christ,  and  he  shall  reign  for  ever  and  ever"  (Rev.  xi.  15). 

To)  KaOrjfxivio  ciri  tov  Opovov  kcu  tw  apviio 

1)  eiXoyia  kul  rj  Ti/xr)  kol  tj  86^a  kol  to  Kpa.TO'i 

ets  Tovs  alwvas  twv  alwvuiy. 


CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL 
COMMENTARY. 


CRITICAL   AND    GRAMMATICAL 
COMMENTARY. 


CHAPTER  I. 


I.  On  the  months,  see  note  on  verse  7.  C,  B.  MichaeUs  considers 
that  as  the  clay  of  the  month  is  not  named,  the  ordinal  which  quali- 
fies the  month  is  also  to  be  understood  as  marking  the  day.  Hitzig 
maintains  that  in  such  a  case  that  fact  would  have  been  expressly 
mentioned,  as  in  Exod.  xix.  i,  or  be  directly  deducible  from  the 
context,  as  in  Deut,  xvi.  i  ;  i  Sam.  xx.  5,  But  as  CJ'in  is  often 
used  for  the  day  of  the  new  moon,  the  first  of  the  month,  it  might, 
as  Kohlef  notes,  have  that  signification  here.  If  this  be  so,  Zecha- 
riah  received  his  first  recorded  prophetic  inspiration  on  a  feast- 
day,  as  Haggai  did,  and  exactly  two  months  later  than  his  fellow 
prophet.  The  Syr.  translator  was  of  this  opinion,  for  he  adds  ''in 
the  first  day  of  the  month." 

The  Darius  mentioned  in  Zechariah  and  Haggai  cannot  be  any 
other  than  Darius  Hystaspis,  for  Haggai  speaks  of  some  of  the  exiles 
as  having  seen  the  temple  of  Solomon  in  its  glory.  As  that  temple 
was  destroyed  in  B.C.  587,  this  could  not  have  been  the  case  if  the 
Darius  referred  to  was  Darius  Ochus  or  Nothus,  who  ascended  the 
throne  of  Persia  in  B.C.  424.  Joseph  Scaliger,  who  took  the  latter 
view,  tried  to  avoid  the  difficulty  arising  from  Hag.  ii.  3,  by  an  erro- 
neous translation  of  that  passage.  See  Kohler's  Comm.  on  Haggai, 
pp.  7,  8.  The  Hebrew  ^VtI"?  corresponds  to  the  old  Persian  Darya- 
vush,  found  in  the  arrow-headed  inscriptions  of  Persepolis  and  Be- 
histun. 

Son  of  Iddo.      Zechariah   is  mentioned   as   a   son   of   Iddo    in 


526  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  i.  2,  3. 

Neh.  xii.  16.  Iddo  was  one  of  the  heads  of  a  priestly  family  in  the 
days  of  Joiakim  the  high  priest,  who  was  the  son  of  the  great  high 
priest  who  with  Zenibbabel  headed  the  first  band  of  exiles  which 
returned  to  Jerusalem.  Zechariah  is  also  mentioned  as  the  son  of 
Iddo  in  Ezra  v.  i,  vi.  14.  p  is  used  not  merely  of  a  son,  but  also 
of  a  grandson.  Compare,  besides  the  present  text,  2  Kings  xix.  14 
with  20.     See  Introduction  §  i. 

The  term  "  the  prophet "  no  doubt  refers  to  Zechariah,  So  the 
LXX,  and  Vulg.  The  Hebrew  accentuation,  however,  connects  it 
with  "  Iddo."  This  accentuation  rests  upon  an  old  idea  that  when 
a  prophet  is  specially  distinguished  by  the  addition  of  his  father's 
name,  the  father  so  named  was  also  a  prophet.  Kimchi  adopts 
this  view,  without  perceiving  the  gross  anachronism  of  identifying 
the  Iddo  here  mentioned  with  Iddo  the  seer  who  prophesied  against 
Jeroboam  I.  (2  Chron.  ix.  29). 

In  the  year  two.  On  the  cardinal  for  the  ordinal,  see  Ges. 
§  120,  4  ;  Kalisch  §  91,  4. 

2.  ^VR-  ^-'i^-  When  a  verb  takes  as  its  object  a  noun  from  the 
same  stem  expressing  the  idea  inherent  in  the  verb,  the  action  of  the 
verb  is  expressed  more  vividly  (Ges.  §  13S,  i,  rem.  i  ;  Kalisch 
§  102,  73  Ewald  §  281,  a).  Its  force  in  the  present  case  is  to  add 
emphasis  to  the  verb,  and  is  well  expressed  by  Ewald's  rendering, 
which  we  have  adopted.  The  phrase  is  not,  however,  to  be  regarded 
with  Rosenmilller  as  altogether  equivalent  to  that  used  in  verse  15 
and  in  chap.  vii.  12,  though  the  LXX.  and  Syr.  have  rendered  them 
alike.  An  intransitive  becomes  transitive  with  the  accusative  of 
kindred  meaning.  Comp.  verse  14,  chap.  viii.  2  ;  Ps.  xiv.  5  ;  2  Sam. 
xii.  16 ;  2  Kings  iv.  13  ;  2  Kings  xiii.  14,  etc. 

3.  rnosi.  Perf.  with  vav  conv.  (observe  the  tone,  Ges.  §  49,  3), 
used  as  a  command  without  any  imperative  preceding,  some  such 
word  as  "go"  being  understood  in  this  case;  so  2  Sam.  xiv.  10. 
Comp.  Ges.  §  126,  6,  rem.  i ;  Driver  §  119,  ^;  Ewald  §  343,  bzcci^c. 

'■'■Jahavch  of  hosts."     The  LXX.  in  this  verse  renders  the  first 
by  iravTOKpaToyp,  the  Other  two  by  twv  Swa/iewv. 

^•"iJi'^l.,,  27iat  J  may  return  unto  you,  or,  and  I  will  return  to 
you,  as  LXX.,  Vulg.,  but  the  force  of  the  \  is  better  rendered  by 
that  expressing  a  purpose;  see  Ewald,  §  235,  /'.  The  cohortative 
form  would  have  been  expected  here,  "^^-l'^'^^. ;  comp.  Jer.  xxxi. 
18;  Mai.  iii.  7  ;  Neh.  vi.   2,  7,  10.     Lottcher  thinks  that  the  ^-  is 


Ch.i.3-5.]        CRITICAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL  COMM.  527 

dropped  before  words  beginning  with  N  ^  the  verb  is  followed  here 
by  D3vX.     But  this  is  scarcely  the  cause.     See  Bottcher  §  957,  ^n 

CiH/P^?,  Script,  def  for  CrT'PX ;  an  inaccurate  expression,  as  gram- 
matically it  would  refer  to  the  fathers,  to  whom  Zechariah  was  not 
sent.  Lange  has  suggested  that  the  use  of  the  expression  was 
occasioned  by  the  fact  that  Zechariah,  as  a  young  man  compared  with 
the  remnant  of  the  former  generation,  might  have  considered  them 
to  represent  as  such  the  generation  of  the  fathers.  The  pronoun  is 
here  used,  though  the  noun  to  which  it  refers  was  not  yet  mentioned. 
Comp.  Isa.  ix.  21. 

4.  D3''7''71;di.  The  form  to  be  read  in  the  text,  according  to 
Gesenius,  is  'V^P,  a  very  rare  nominal  formation,  which  occurs 
also  in  Lam.  iii.  6^,  Dri3"'5^p,  "  their  song."  The  form  of  the  k'ri 
is  ??yp.  Hitzig  and  Fiirst  maintain  that  we  ought  to  read  the 
text  D5^^^^i^0  from  Mu  with  the  prep.  IP.  The  plural  of  that 
word  has  elsewhere  the  fem.  form.  Several  nouns  have,  however, 
a  double  plural.  This  latter  is  perhaps  the  preferable  view,  and 
is  adopted  by  K5hler  and  Keil.  If  the  text  be  read  as  Gesenius 
proposed,  we  must  supply  the  preposition  Pfrom  the  noun  pre- 
ceding. The  reading  of  the  Oriental  Jews  was  D3v''py^p-"ij  and 
though  the  Babylonian  Codex  has  the  Western  reading,  it  adds  the 
other  as  an  emendation,  with  the  note  "this  is  the  correct  read- 
ing." See  Baer's  edition  of  the  Minor  Prophets,  Leipzig,  1878. 
Baer  observes  that  as  the  Masora  follows  the  Western  pointing,  this 
word  is  omitted  in  the  list  of  those  beginning  with  ^01. 

The  words  of  Zechariah  so  closely  resemble  those  of  Jer.  xxv.  5, 
that  they  are,  perhaps,  best  regarded  as  a  free  quotation  from  that 
prophet.  Jerome  notices  the  calls  to  repentance  made  by  Isaiah 
(xxxi.  6,  Iv.  7),  Hosea  (xiv.  2),  Joel  (ii.  12),  and  Jeremiah  (iii,  12, 
xviii.  II,  xxiv.  4,  5,  xxv.  45),  and  their  unsuccessful  issue.  Comp. 
Jer.  xxv.  3-8  ;  2  Kings  xvii.  13. 

5.  QD'i"'.*?:?.  ''>??  shortened  form  of  ^*.^ ;  comp.  ID  and  i^).!),  where. 
With  suffixes  it  includes  the  sense  of  the  substantive  verb,  as  n3*5^ 
"where  art  thou  ?"  (Gen.  iii.  9),  I''?  "  where  is  he  ?  "  (Exod.  ii.  20  ; 
Job.  xiv.  10,  XX,  7  ;  2  Kings  xix.  13;  Micah  vii.  10,  D^*^  "where 
are  they?"  Isa.  xix.  12;  Nah.  iii.  7.  The  lengthened  form  seems 
used  for  emphasis. 

Jerome,  Cyrill,  and  Luther  consider  that  false  prophets  are  here 
referred  to,  as  in  Jer.  xxxvii.  19.     But,  as  Rosenmiiller  observes,  the 


528  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  i.  5-7. 

article  shows  that  the  same  prophets  are  referred  to  who  were  before 
mentioned. 

The  Targum  takes  the  second  question  as  a  reply  of  the  people 
to  the  question  of  the  prophet,  "  Your  fathers  where  are  they  ?  and 
if  you  say,  The  prophets,  do  they  live  for  ever?  "  So  several  of  the 
Jewish  comm.,  followed  by  Venema,  Burger,  etc.  But  in  this  case  the 
perfect,  or  ^'"'.D,  would  have  been  expected  rather  than  the  imperfect. 

The  idea  of  the  passage  seems  to  be  :  Your  fathers  suffered  the 
penalty  denounced  against  them,  and  are  gone.  So  are  the  prophets 
also,  but  their  Avords  have  been  fulfilled  after  their  decease,  and 
therefore  you  do  well  to  recall  their  words  to  mind,  and  to  ponder 
over  their  fulfilment  as  a  warning  to  yourselves. 

6.  And  they  turned.  Not  "they  were  converted."  There  was  a 
change,  but  the  change  is  not  said  to  have  been  deeper  than  that 
they  were  led  to  acknowledge  that  the  judgments  threatened  were 
really  executed  upon  them.  (Hitzig.)  Syr.,  "  Your  fathers  remem- 
bered and  considered  with  themselves." 

"^^^  originally  affirmative,  then  restrictive,  otdy,  yd,  hoivever,  as 
limiting  what  was  said  before  (Ewald  §  105  d),  It  is  closely  con- 
nected with  ?,  I?,  p^.  See  Bottcher  Lehrb.  §  520.  131,  used  of 
threatenings,  as  Ezek.  xii.  28;  Jer.xxxix.  16.  ""pri.  Here  not  statutes, 
ordinances,  but  divinely  appointed  decrees  (Ps.  ii.  7  ;  Zeph,  ii.  2). 
JtJ'i  only  used  in  hiphil.  It  occurs  with  reference  to  blessings  (Deut. 
xxviii.  2),  and  in  the  same  chapter  (verses  15,  45)  also  of  curses. 
Designed  to  do.     The  prophet  perhaps  had  Lam.  ii.  1 7  in  his  mind. 

7.  I3n  is  revelation  in  general  (chap.  xi.  11),  though  taken  in 
with  the  eye  ;  ntn^  and  P^n^  though  properly  referring  to  visions,  are 
also  used  of  a  revelation  communicated  through  the  ear.     See  p.  5. 

t23^.  The  names  of  the  Hebrew  months  seem  to  have  been 
changed  after  the  captivity.  The  names  which  then  came  into  use 
were  of  Assyrio- Babylonian  origin,  as  is  proved  by  a  table  of  Assyrian 
months  discovered  in  Nineveh  and  published  by  Norris  in  his  Diet. 
The  following  list  with  the  Assyrian  names  is  based  upon  that  given  by 
Schrader  {die  Kcilinschriftcn  vnd  das  A.  71'j-/.  p.  247):  (i)  |D\3  Nisan 
(called  in  Pent,  ^^nxn,  Ahib),  April,  Neh.  ii.  i  ;  Esth.  iii.  7  ; 
Ni-sa-an-nu.  (2)  "i*':^^  Vyyar  (not  Biblical,  Talmudic),  Ai-ru,  May, 
Heb.  "I?,  Ziv,  i  Kings  vi.  37.  (3)  iVP,  Si7'aii,  Si-va-nu,///w,  Esth. 
viii.  9.  (4)  T-l^-?  Tammuz  (not  Biblical  as  the  name  of  a  month, 
Talmudic),     Du-vu-zu,   July.       (5)    2X     Ab,  A-bu    (not     Biblical, 


Ch.  i.  8.]  CRITICAL  AND  GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  529 

Talmudic),  Augitst  (6)  ^-l^.^:^,  'Eliil,  U-lu-lu,  Neh.  vi.  15,  September. 
(7)  n!r*'jyi,  Tishn,  Tas-ri-tu  (not  Biblical,  Talmudic),  October.  Hebrew 
once.  Q^^risn  nnj?,  "  in  the  month  of  ever-flowing  streams,"  Ethanim, 
I  Kings  viii.  2,  (8)  n^OI^,  Marchesvan,  originally  called  >"I2,  But, 
I  Kings  vi.  38  {Joseph.  Antiq.  i.  3,  §  3),  A-ra-ah  {i.q.  ni^)sam-na  (njb*^)^ 
i.e.,  the  eighth  month,  November.  (9)  1/?P3,  Kislev,  Neh.  i.  i  ; 
Zech.  vii.  i,  Ki-si-li-vu,  December.  (10)  rilt?^  Tebeth,  Ti-bi-tuv, 
Esth.  ii.  \(),  January.  (11)  t03^,  Sebat,  or  Shebat,  Sa-ba-tu,  Zechi.  7; 
I  Mace.  xvi.  14,  February.  (12)  "il>^,  Adar,  Ad-da-ru,  Esth.  iii.  7, 
March,  and  "il^l,  the  intercalary  month,  Ar-hu  ma-ak-ru  sa  Addaru 
{i.e.,  the  month  after  the  Addar).  The  English  equivalents  are  only 
of  course  approximately  true  as  the  months  were  lunar. 

8.  TT'SI  without  a  formal  object,  the  whole  vision  being  in  fact 
the  object.  It  scarcely  means,  as  Umbreit,  Kohler  and  Pressel, 
suppose,  "/rc'^j-in  the  peculiar  condition  of  a  seer,"  or  nsi^  as  Samuel, 
the  father  of  Old  Test,  prophets,  is  called.  The  njn  introduces 
the  special  details  of  the  vision. 

n?vn,  ace.  of  time,  by  night  or  in  the  nighf,  hardly  indicating, 
as  Keil  and  Lange  think,  "  during  the  night,"  as  if  it  meant  that  the 
whole  night  long  was  occupied  with  visions  (Ges.  §  118,  2  ;  Kalisch 
§  86,  4/).  On  the  article,  see  Ges.  §  109  rem.  at  beginning,  Kalisch 
§  79)  5  [6]-  It  might  be  rendered  "in  the  night,"  but  is  scarcely 
equivalent  to  "  this  day,"  in  which  case  it  would  have  been  HTn  nP'^pri. 
See  note  2,  p.  5.  As  the  Jewish  day  began  at  sunset,  the  night  was 
what  we  would  call  the  night  of  the  twenty-third  day.  Night  was 
frequently  the  season  for  Divine  revelations,  as  in  the  cases  of 
Samuel  (i  Sam.  iii.),  Solomon  (i  Kings  iii.  5),  Job  (iv.  12,  fif),  Paul 
(Acts  xvi.  9),  etc. 

^Dy  Xinij  might  refer  either  to  the  man,  "and  he  was  standing 
between  the  myrtle  trees,"  in  which  case  the  sufiix  in  Vinxi 
would  refer  to  the  same  person,  "and  behind  him  ;"  or,  as  Hitzig 
notes,  if  verse  10  were  not  in  the  way,  it  might  refer  to  the  horse, 
"  and  it  was  standing,  etc.,"  and  "behind  it."  Verse  10,  however, 
shows  that  the  reference  is  to  the  man. 

"The  Jews,"  says  Jerome,  "  suppose  this  man  to  be  the  angel 
Michael,  who  is  the  avenger  of  the  iniquities  and  the  sins  of  Israel." 

Fiirst  {der  Kanon  des  A.T.)  notes  that  the  Jewish  opinion  given  in 
the  Talmud  is  that  the  man  on  the  red  horse  is  God,  that  the  red 
horse  signifies  blood  and  war,  and  that  the  myrtles  in  the  deep  valley 

M  M 


530  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  i.  8. 

where  he  halts  represent  the  three  pious  men,  Hananiah,  Mishael, 
and  Azariah  (Dan.  i.  6),  who  restrain  God  from  executing  his  ven- 
geance.    The  deep  there  is  explained  as  representing  Babylon. 

The  rendering  of  the  LXX.  Kai  oSros  eicrrv/Kei  dm  yxeVov  Tajv  (alia  ex - 
enip.  Twvovo)  opeW(as  if  reading  Q^i.^JiH  P?)  twv  Karao-KtW  (n7^'D3  TJ'S) 
seem  to  have  arisen  from  a  confusion  of  the  first  with  the  seventh 
vision  in  chap.  vi.  i,  ff.,  the  horses  in  both  passages  being  supposed 
to  be  represented  in  the  same  place.  The  variations  in  the  reading 
are  given  below.  But  the  character  of  the  two  visions  is  totally 
different  (see  pp.  12,  13).  Aq.  and  Symm.  correctly  twv /xupo-tvcojvwv, 
///^  viyrtle  groves.     Syr.,  "  and  standing  between  shady  trees." 

npyj?3.  On  the  article  see  p.  10  and  the  note  there.  It  has  also 
been  explained  as  akin  to  our  phrases,  "on  the  shore,"  "in  the 
shade,"  Germ,  "am  Ufer,"  "  im  Schatten."  The  correct  reading  is  as 
we  have  given  it,  (not  nVvoa  with  daghesh  in  the  ^),  following  Baer 
and  Delitzsch  in  their  critical  edition  of  the  Minor  Prophets.  They 
note  that  it  is  one  of  the  forty-eight  words  only  written  once  without 
vav.  They  observe  that  the  note  in  the  Rabb.  Bibles,  ^'JTi  "lOn  n''?, 
is  correct,  for  t^'Jll  means  that  ^  has  daghesh,  which  fact  distin- 
guishes this  word  from  npivp?  (Ps.  cvii.  24).  Hence  its  plural 
occurs  with  the  script,  plena  in  chap.  x.  1 1.  The  Vulg.  has  in  prof  undo  ; 
the  Targ.  gives  an  interpretation  when  it  renders  "  in  Babylon." 
Hence  deep  valley  seems  its  proper  meaning  (the  plural  is  used  of  the 
deptlis  of  the  sea,  Jonah  ii.  4  ;  of  a  river,  Zech.  x.  1 1 ;  and  of  miry 
places,  Ps.  Ixix.  3),  rather  than  shade,  or  shady  place,  in  which  case  it 
should  be  written  with  the  daghesh  in  the  A  Fiirst  treats  i^/VP  or 
n^llip  as  put  for  i^?V9  and  considers  the  word  to  signify  a  tent  (com- 
paring nspj  Ps.  xviii.  1 2)  represented  as  the  dwelling  place  of  God  in 
heaven  and  symbolised  by  the  earthly  tabernacle  (Rev.  xi.  19,  ii.  17), 
the  myrtles  denoting  the  olive  trees  which  were  in  the  court  of  the 
temple  (2  Mace.  xiv.  4).  But  see  note  p.  8.  Very  similarly  Bottcher, 
who  would  read  n?Vr|)3j  in  the  shady  roof  (im  Schatten-Dach),/'.('.,  under 
cover  of  the  shade  of  the  surroundings  of  the  tabernacle  in  which  God 
was  supposed  to  dwell.  He  maintains  that  n?V^i^  cannot  mean  the 
sacred  tabernacle  itself,  but  rather  the  space  before  that  tabernacle 
which  was  planted  with  trees.  This  is  a  mere  fancy,  and  is  strangely 
supported  by  a  reference  to  Gen.  iii.  8  !  The  view  of  Hitzig  and 
Evvald  is  not  very  dissimilar.  (See  p.  8).  The  LXX.  and  Syr.  connect 
the  word  with    the  idea  of  shade,   LXX.   dva  fxiaov  twv  opewv  tCjv 


Ch.  i.  8.]  CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  S3  I 

Karao-KtW,  reading  for  D^BIDn  either  Cli^i^,  or  Cinnqn,  as  Rosen- 
miiller  and  Schleusner,  or  perhaps  Cl-np,  which  the  LXX.  translate 
in  Isa.  xlv.  2  by  6pr]. 

With  respect  to  the  golden  vine  alluded  to  in  the  note  on  p.  8,  it 
ought  to  be  observed  that  Josephus  speaks  of  such  a  vine  being 
stretched  by  Herod  the  Great  upon  the  door  of  the  temple  {^Antiq. 
XV.  II,  §  3;  Bell. /lid.  V.  5,  §  4).  It  has  been,  however,  disputed 
whether  the  vine  spoken  of  by  Josephus  as  given  by  Aristobulus  to 
Pompey  ever  belonged  to  the  temple,  and  it  has  been  supposed  by 
some  to  have  been  a  treasure  or  heir-loom  of  the  Asmonsean  family. 
So  Hudson  and  Havercamp.  The  Talmud  says  that  the  golden 
vine  was  the  gift  of  the  Queen-mother  Helene  of  Adiabene. 

On  the  significance  of  the  colours  see  our  remarks  on  p.  14,  ff.  Ibn 
Ezra  considers  the  colours  here  to  be  of  no  significance,  no  more  than 
the  material  of  the  cake  in  Judges  vii.  13.  That  red  is  often  used  in  a 
figurative  meaning  is  shown  by  2  Kings  iii.  22,  where  the  water  which 
appeared  red  in  the  rays  of  the  sun  represented  slaughter ;  and  the 
red  garments  of  the  rider  spoken  of  in  Isa.  Ixiii.  i,  2,  are  evidently 
symbolical.  The  question  whether  the  colours  are  symbolical  in 
Zechariah  is  a  different  matter,  and  the  uncertainty  about  the 
colour  signified  by  DV"'^,  and  the  disagreement  between  commenta- 
tors as  to  the  symbol  intended,  make  us  adhere  to  the  view  expressed 
in  the  chapter  referred  to.  But  in  addition  to  the  articles  noticed  in 
note  I,  p.  20,  Delitzsch's  interesting  paper  on  "  Die  Talmud  und 
die  Farben  "  in  the  number  of  Nord  u.  Slid  iox  May  1878  ought  to 
be  mentioned. 

It  is  not  clear  what  precise  colour  is  designated  by  Q''i'^'r|?^.  Rashi 
and  Kimchi  confess  that  they  do  not  know  what  colour  is  meant. 
The  word  occurs  in  a  slightly  different  form,  Q''i'?-'l"i^,  in  Isa.  xvi.  8,  in 
the  sense  of  the  clusters  or  grapes  of  the  vine.  From  the  same  root 
comes  \>'y^  (Isa.  v.  2  ;  Jer.  ii.  21),  and  np^.E^  (Gen.  xlix.  11),  a  kind 
of  noble  vine,  so  called  from  the  colour  of  the  grapes. 

The  root  pli^,  to  be  pale  red,  is  to  be  connected  with  the  Arabic 

"s;  ^£9  to   shine,  which   is    used  in   the    derived  sense   of  becoinitig 

red.       With    the    letters    transposed    there    is    yii«,  from  whence 

the    common    adjective  -liiis)  applied   to   both   men  and  horses.  ^ 

'  plb^  to  card,  to  cofnb,  is  quite  a  different  root.  Pressel  is  decidedly  wrong 
in  seeking  to  connect  the  noun  p^K*  with  the  root  in  the  sense  of  combing, 
carding,  as  if  it  meant  the  finely  striped  and  fitte  Jibred  vine  as  contrasted  with  the 


532  ZECIIARIAH   AND   IIIS   rROniECIES.  [Ch.  i.  8. 

When  applied  to  a  man  it  denotes  a  ruddy  complexion  combined 
with  fairness ;  when  applied  to  a  horse  (and  the  very  word  is  used  here 
in  the  Arabic  translation)  it  denotes  a  sorrel  colour,  a  yellowish  red 
or  brown,  or  a  red  colour  inclining  to  a  dull  red.  Though  horses  of 
this  colour  are  said  by  some  to  be  the  best,  Hariri  says  that  the 
Arabs  generally  regard  the  colour  as  of  evil  omen  (See  Lane's  Arab. 
Lexicon).  Saadiah  gives  <3^^^-^  as  an  ec^uivalent  for  the  Hebrew  P!)!^, 
the  vine,  which  is  a  mere  transcription  of  the  Hebrew,  but  Abu'l- 
walid  speaks  of  ^^„^ — J I  (or  as  it  is  in  Neubauer's  edition  ^  .^()  as 
the  name  of  a  most  noble  species  of  vine  which  grows  m  Syria. 

The  ancient  versions  do  not  cast  much  light  on  the  matter.  The 
Targum  has  V^)P,,  according  to  the  London  Polyglott,  of  whose 
meaning  Buxtorf  is  uncertain,  but  which  Bochart  renders  red. 
The  Ethiopic  for  red  is  4'jPrh:  kayeh.  Levy  writes  \'^\P,  or  I^Onp, 
which  latter  is  the  reading  of  de  Lagarde,  and  which  Levy 
considers  to  be  probably  the  Greek  KmvoxatVr/s,  dark  maned. 
The  LXX.  have  koX  \\iapoi  koX  ttolklXol,  speckled  and  piebald^ 
though  some  MSS.  omit  the  first  epithet.  Aq.  $dv6oi,  Vulg. 
varii.  The  Syr.  has  h^^^^,  which,  as  it  is  used  for  the 
Hebrew  ^^-^p  in  their  translation  of  Gen.  xxx.  32,  must  mean  spotted, 
parti-colou7-£d.  The  Arab,  version  has  five  adjectives,  "  red,  and 
sorrel,  and  black,  and  white,  and  grey,"  reading  Tia'ppos  for  ij/ap6<;, 
which  reading  Jerome  mentions  (see  Ges.  T/ies.).  Gesenius  seems 
to  be  correct  in  regarding  the  Hebrew  word  here  as  identical  with 
the  Arabic  equivalent  which  we  have  here  translated  sorre/,  and 
which  is  a  word  used  of  horses  and  explained  as  above  on  the  authority 
of  Lane.  In  the  passage  in  chap.  vi.  3,  respecting  the  horses  of  the 
the  fourth  chariot,  the  Arab,  translates  ^''^^JOS  Dm3  by  pja  \Jo 
variegated,  sorrel,  where  the  LXX.  have  ttolklXol  v/^a/joi,  the  Arab., 
perhaps,  reading  Trvppoi,  which  Jerome  says  was  the  reading  of  some 
copies,  though  not  now  found  in  any  MSS.  The  D^vroxn  of  verse  7 
is  similarly  rendered.     Aquila  in  the  latter  passage  has  Trvpfwi 

Kohler  translates  D^pnb  by  fire-coloured  or  fiery-red,  comparing 
the  Chald.  and  Talm.  P"ib  or  PID  to  paint,  to  rouge,  of  women, 
with  transposition  of  letters  ipD,  whence  ^"^P.^P,  rouge.  This  is  evi- 
dently connected  with  the  Arab,  root  spoken  of  above.  Keil's  re- 
coarser  sort  in  Jer.  ii.  21,  and  then  viewing  the  word  in  our  text,  when  referring 
to  horses,  as  iAgn\iy\ng  finc-hainci,  sleek-coatcJ. 


Ch.  i.  9.]  CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  533 

mark  that  the  meaning  "  pale  red  "  or  "  fiery  red  "  is  not  provable  in 
Hebrew  is  misleading,  as  it  seems  to  leave  out  of  sight  the  important 
fact  that  the  word  is  nowhere  else  used  except  in  the  passages  already 
referred  to.  Delitzsch  thinks  that  pi"^  is  to  be  explained  as  scarlet, 
corresponding  to  the  colour  of  fire.  He  considers  that  the  'p!}^ 
was  so  called  from  its  colour,  and  compares  yj^,  the  red,  or  blood- 
coloured  dA\tvc\onQ  {La/ie).  See  Delitzsch's  remarks  on  Isa.  v.  Comp- 
^t£J«  of  a  cloth  stained  with  a  red  colour.  The  fern.  iJ-Ais 
is  used,  as  Lane  notes,  as  a  substantive  {ox  fire.  The  Arab,  adjec- 
tive when  applied  to  a  camel  means  one  "  intensely  red.'" 

There  is  no  doubt  a  great  temptation  to  try  to  explain  the  term  here,  as 
the  ancient  versions  have  apparently  done,  by  a  reference  to  the  phrase 
in  chap.  vi.  2,  or  even  to  the  colours  in  Rev.  vi.,  and  thus  to  seek  to 
make  out,  with  Keil,  that  the  word  is  equivalent  to  the  Greek  p^A-wpos, 
in  defiance  of  all  philological  considerations.  The  order,  moreover, 
here  is  (i)  the  D^0^^*,  red,  rendered  by  the  LXX.  Trvftpoi;  (2)  the  DVi^, 
LXX.  xpapol  Koi  -rroLKiXoi;  (3)  the  D^J2?^  7vhite,  LXX.  XevKou  In  chap, 
vi.  the  order  is  (i)  the  red,  as  here,  expressed  by  the  same  words  in 
Hebrew  and  LXX. ;  (2)  the  C'^'n?;',  Mac^,  so  LXX.,  which  colour  is  not 
found  here;  (3)  the  w/iite,  expressed  by  the  same  words  as  here  both  in 
the  Hebrew  and  the  LXX. ;  (4)  the  ^''"^^r',  speckled,  also  not  mentioned 
here,  unless  we  arbitrarily  consider  that,  though  mentioned _/y//;'///,  these 
horses  are  to  be  identified  with  the  D''P"itJ^  mentioned  second m.  this  place. 
These  Q'^'ll^  have  a  further  epithet,  that  of  D"*  V?3X,  on  which  see  p.  1 2  8,  ff. 
and  note.    The  LXX.  render  the  two  terms  in  chap.  vi.  3  ttolkcXol  xpapoi. 

Inasmuch  as  the  cognate  word  in  Arabic  is  used  of  the  colour  of 
horses,  and  the  Hebrew  adjective  here  describes  such  animals,  and  as 
the  Arabic  term  is  used  of  chestnut  or  bay  horses,  we  feel  compelled 
to  adopt  that  signification.  We  do  not  deny  the  symbolism  of  colours 
in  other  places,  but  we  cannot  see  that  such  symbolism  is  used  in 
this  passage.  We  observe  that  Drake,  in  the  Speaker's  Conwientary, 
agrees  with  the  view  defended  in  our  Lectures  as  to  the  colour  of 
the  horses  in  chap.  i.  not  being  symbolical,  though  he  inconsistently 
speaks  of  the  colours  as  symbolical  in  chap.  vi.  6. 

9.  The  personal  pronoun  is  sometimes  used  separately  for  the 
substantive  verb  when  the  present  state  of  a  person  or  thing  is  signi- 
fied, as  •IJm  nnx  K'^K  ^j?  -I^b,  Gen.  xlii.  11,  and  here,  n^X  r\y:ir\  HD. 
See  Ges.  §  121,  i,  2  ;  Kalisch  §  78,  4.  Ewald  regards  the  HDH  at 
the  end  of  the  verse  as  peculiarly  emphatic,  Ewald  §  297  b.     The 


534  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.        [Ch.i.  11-13. 

ncn  is  omitted  in  the  first  clause  of  the  verse.  Observe,  too,  the 
same  usage  in  chap.  iv.  4,  and  chap.  iv.  5.  '"T?  expresses  the  inquiry 
after  the  kind,  quaUty,  or  sort,  ''P  after  persons,  Ewald  §  325  a. 

"  The  angel  that  talked  zuith  nie."     LXX.  6  \akojv  iv  ifx-oi     Jer. 

^ui  loquebatur  in  me.  See  our  remarks  on  p.  12.  Syr.  ^o  'vwic^>. 
Dr.  P.  Zingerle  says  the  same  expression  is  found  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse of  Paul;  translated  by  him  in  Heidenheim's  Viei'teljahrsschrift, 
iv.  I,  p.  140,  ff.,  see  specially  p.  145.  Ewald  considers  that  the  force 
of  the  ?  is  to  give  the  subordinate  idea  of  the  speech  especially 
of  a  higher  with  a  lower  as  his  servant.  He  compares,  for  this 
sense  of  ?,  the  phrase  ?  'l?!',  to  do  work  with,  through  any  one,  i.e. 
to  force  him  to  work.     Exod.  i.  14;  Ewald  §  217,7^  3. 

Ti.  n^pb')  T\'^f\  Compare  ni^^'-l  T\y£'\  chap.  vii.  7,  and  T\'C^\P\ 
n|^y-1,  I  Chron.  iv.  40,  also  Jud.  xviii.  7,  where  the  people  of  Laish 
are  described  as  ntp^p  ^?P'''\  after  the  custom  of  the  Sidonians 
noh-l  t^iP.K'.  Some  regard  the  expression  here  as  a  hendiadys  for 
dwelling  trafigiiilly,  but  ^C'  has  sometimes  that  sense  when  used 
alone ;  Mic.  v.  3  ;  Zech.  x.  6. 

C.  B.  Michaelis,  Rosenmiiller,  and  others  suppose  that  the  land  of 
Judah  was  not  included  under  the  report  alluded  to  inverse  11. 
Hitzig  is  of  a  contrary  opinion.  Inasmuch  as  the  import  of  the 
vision  seems  to  be  to  represent  the  Gentile  world  in  a  state  of  proud 
security,  while  Judah  was  in  a  state  of  misery,  Lange  thinks  Judah 
must  not  be  reckoned  among  the  lands  traversed  by  the  angelic 
riders,  as  Hitzig  imagines.  But  the  quiet  in  the  case  of  Judah  was 
that  caused  by  oppression  and  hopelessness,  while  the  quiet  of  the 
nations  was  that  of  proud  security. 

1 2.  nnoyr  nii'S  On  the  full  form  of  the  ending  see  Ges. 
§  44,  2,  rem.  4.  "it^'i<  is  the  accusative  governed  by  the  verb,  as  in 
Isa.  Ixvi.  14;  Mai.  i.  4.  Drake  considers  the  seventy  years  to  de- 
note the  years  during  which  the  temple  lay  desolate.  But  the  deso- 
lations of  the  cities  of  Judah,  including  Jerusalem,  are  specially 
referred  to  by  the  angel  in  his  prayer,  as  well  as  spoken  of  in  the 
answer  of  Jahavch. 

13.  "'2  "inn  is  in  apposition  to  "IX^On,  as  is  indicated  by  the 
accents,  and  is  not  to  be  connected  with  the  words  following. 
D^niD  Dnai  Comp.  i  Kings  xii.  7.  Rashi  thinks  that  Zechariah  did 
not  hear  the  reply  of  God  to  the  angel,  but  understood  its  import 
from  what  the  angel  said  to  him. 


Ch.  i.  14,  15.]    CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  535 

D*5ri3.  The  ^  is  marked  with  raphe  as  in  Isa.  Ivii.  18.  This  is 
noted  in  the  Masora.  The  noun  occurs  without  daghesh  in  Hos. 
xi.  8,  |''^-inJ.  It  is  not  an  adjective,  as  rendered  in  our  A.  V.,  "  com- 
fortable words,"  but  a  substantive  in  apposition  to  D''"i3"i.  Compare 
n*p"j  |tk^p^  Ps.  cxx.  2,  3,  It  is  a  piel  verbal  form,  hence  there  is  a 
daghesh  implicitum  in  the  n.  The  doubling  of  the  third  radical 
might  be  defended  (see  Ewald  §  155  c),  though  it  is  better  omitted 
as  directed  by  the  Masora.  The  noun  is  a  plural,  the  plural  of  ex- 
tension, used  not  only  to  denote  extension  in  space,  as  D''^t^',  heaven, 
or  in  time  as  CTiW,  youth,  but  also  in  thought,  as  C'Orn^  viercy, 
D"'Dm,  consolation,  D'^Dimn,  id.,  D''3i:nn,  supplication,  Zech.  xii.  10. 
See  Bottcher  §  689. 

14,  K"ip.  Proclaim,  cry  aloud.  Comp.  Isa.  xl.  6,  Iviii.  i  ;  Jonah 
i.  2, 

^nxjp.  Used  of  the  zeal  of  love,  as  Joel  ii.  18  \  Num.  xxv.  11,  13. 
The  perfect  is  best  regarded  here  as  an  inchoative,  as  Josh, 
ii.  18,  f2  •l^rn.ltn  "/^y  which  yon  are  letting  ns  doiun^  See  Ges. 
§  126,  3  ;  Ewald  §  135,  b  ;  Driver  §  to  ;  KaHsch  §  93,  3.  The  perf, 
is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  participle  which  is  used  in  the  next 
verse  (1)?P).  God's  zeal  is  represented  as  already  stirred  up  for  his 
people  ;  the  participle  perhaps  indicates  that  the  wrath  aroused  was 
an  enduring  one  (Keil).  The  root  'p  properly  signifies  to  be  red 
and  the  verb  is  used  in  Hebrew  of  the  burning  of  jealousy  as  seen 
in  the  glow  of  the  countenance  (Num.  v.  14),  then  of  envy  gene- 
rally (Gen.  xxvi.  14,  xxxvii.  11).  The  red  of  the  countenance  may 
also  arise  from  love  and  desire  to  assist,  hence  the  verb  is  used  of  zeal, 
ijidignation  {e.g.,  of  the  zeal  of  Phineas,  and  of  Elijah,  Num.  xxv.  11, 
13;  I  Kings  xix.  10),  and  of  compassion  (Joel  ii.  18).  It  does  not 
refer  here  to  the  Lord's  indignation  against  the  former  sins  of  Jeru- 
salem (as  Luther  and  Hesselberg  have  considered),  for  'P  in  that 
meaning  is  construed  with  the  ace,  as  in  Num.  v.  14  ;  Gen.  xxvi.  14, 
or  with  ?  against,  as  Gen.  xxx.  i,  xxxvii.  11.  When  construed 
with  ?,  as  in  this  passage,  it  signifies  to  be  jealous,  or  zealous,  on 
behalf  of,  in  the  cause  of  any  one,  as  Num.  xxv.  13  ;  2  Sam.  xxi,  2  ; 
I  Kings  xix.  10  ;  Joel  ii.  18. 

15.  Compare  on  the  subject  matter  of  the  passage,  Isa.  xlvii.  6, 
also  Isa.  X.  5,  7,  12-15.  On  the  const,  of  the  participle  see  note  on 
verse  14.  D''33Xt;'.  A  noun  derived  from  pilel.  Observe  the  retention 
of  the  a  sound  under  the  first  radical,  as  in  Arab,  and  Aram.     See 


53<3  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS   rROrilECIES.       [Ch.  i.  15,  16. 

Bottcher  §  1021,  2.  V^ulg.  gaites  opulaitas.  LXX.  inl  to.  tOvrj  to. 
cruvcTTiTi^e/Acva,  against  the  nations  who  devise  plots,  possibly  reading 
D''NsJ*3n,  as  Schleusner  has  suggested,  which  is  followed  by  the  Syr. 
and  Arab. 

"itJ'N.  Because,  as  Gen.  xxx.  18,  xxxi.  49 ;  i  Kings  xv.  5  ;  Ges. 
§  i55>  I,  e\  Ewald  §  353,  a  ;  Kalisch  §  107,  3. 

\2iVl2.  See  note  i  on  p.  25.  Lange  opposes  the  view  of  Kohler, 
w^ho  regards  the  adverb  as  denoting  time,  and  thinks  it  refers  to  the 
degree  of  wrath  exhibited,  which  was  small  in  comparison  with  that 
manifested  against  the  heathen ;  but  his  main  argument  against 
Kohler's  view,  namely,  that  the  anger  of  Jahaveh  did  not  commence 
with  the  seventy  years,  ai)pears  to  us  weak.  For  though  that  fact  is 
true,  the  angel  in  his  intercessory  prayer,  to  which  Jahaveh  here 
returns  an  answer,  only  alludes  to  that  period  as  that  in  which  God's 
wrath  was  poured  out  upon  Israel.  Kohler's  view  is  not  opposed 
to  the  fact  that  at  the  end  of  the  seventy  years  God  commenced  to 
show  mercy  to  his  people.  In  one  sense  that  was  true,  yet  the 
oppression  of  Israel  by  the  Gentiles  in  another  sense  still  continued. 

nL'"i7  n:!;.  Compare  the  meaning  of  T\V\7  in  Jer.  xliv.  11,  and 
iT'np'Op  -liW^  2  Chron.  xx.  23.  It  is  not  to  be  rendered,  "  they 
helped  the  evil,"  after  the  analogy  of  2  Sam.  viii.  5,  in  which  case 
the  article  would  have  been  used.  Kohler,  who  considers  that  nyip 
in  the  one  sentence  corresponds  with  toyo  in  the  other  and  forms  a 
contrast,  explains  the  meaning  as  "  helped  it  for  evil,"  by  protracting 
the  affliction  longer  than  designed  by  God.  But  Keil's  view  is 
preferable,  that  "they  helped  it  for  evil,"  with  an  evil  design  ot 
destroying  altogether  the  people  of  God,  comparing  Isa.  xlvii.  6. 

16.  The  building  of  the  temple  had  begun,  but  it  was  not  at 
that  time  far  advanced.  Tiac.  This  is  regarded  by  Driver  {Hclrriv 
Tenses,  §  14,  a)  as  a  prophetic  perfect,  "  I  will  return,"  and  so  Bottcher 
§  947j  /  Similarly  LXX.  cTrto-rpei/'w.  But  it  is  better,  perhaps,  to 
regard  it,  with  Keil,  as  indicating  a  past  action,  the  consequences 
of  which  continued  to  operate  at  the  time  the  words  were  uttered, 
"  I  have  returned,"  or  "  I  am  returned,"  and  consequently  the  temple 
will  be  built.     Compare  also  Driver  §  8. 

nip,  which  occurs  in  the  received  text,  must  be  pointed  "^.Ji^  or 
nip.  The  word  is  found  also  in  i  Kings  vii.  23  ;  Jer.  xxxi.  39,  but 
the  k'ri  has  in  all  these  places  1|^  or  1p,  which  latter  Baer  has  edited 
on  the  authority  of  MSS.  and  according  to  the  Complut.  and  other 


Ch.  i.  i6,  ii.  I.]    CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  537 

ancient  editions.  It  means  a  measuring  line  which  was  used  sometimes 
for  the  purpose  of  destruction  (2  Kings  xxi.  13  ;  Isa.  xxxiv.  11),  and 
also  for  building  up,  as  here,  and  in  Job  xxxviii.  5,  is  figuratively 
used  in  reference  to  creation. 

n3"n32''.  The  daghesh  in  the  3  is  daghesh  forte  conj.,  though 
not  to  be  strongly  pronounced.  Ewald  §  91,  d ;  Ges.  §  20,  2,  a ; 
Kalisch  §  5,  6, 

17.  n3>'-13j7l  is  for  n3''V13ri  the  nun  being  doubled  instead  of  the 
usual  msertion  of  the  ''7.  Compare  i^^p-l^ri  *<^,  Ezek.  xiii.  19; 
n30"'nJilj  Micah  ii.  12;  Ewald  §  196,  c;  Kalisch  §  Ixv.  23,  under  P^- 
But  Baer  edits  njyiarij  without  yod  and  with  the  nun  with  raphe,  on 
the  authority  of  MSS.  and  ancient  editions,  referring  to  Mic/ilol,  11 4,  a. 
p2  occurs  in  another  sense  in  chap.  xiii.  7.  On  the  subject  matter  of 
verse  comp.  Jer.  xxxiii.  12,  13.  The  Targ.  render  the  verb  by  17'?^*, 
'■'■shall  be  filled"  the   LXX.  ^La^Br](jovTai,  Vulg.  affluent.      The  Syr. 

JAriii  _ic  JAxJV^  _^VAmj  W  .^v.  "  henceforth  cities   shall  be  deprived 

\  •  X  "X 

of  all  goody 

Cin3  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  niphil,  and  translated  to  have  com- 
passion (as  Ewald,  Umbreit),  as  in  that  sense  the  word  is  construed 
with  ?y,  ?^  or  ?.  As  it  is  active  here,  it  is  better  to  regard  it  as  piel, 
in  the  sense  of  to  comfort. 

ini  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  having  the  signification  of  to  love, 
as  Gesenius,  Ewald  and  others  render  it.  The  passages  cited  for 
that  signification  are  more  than  dubious.  The  words  n'?t^n''2  *nu  "inn 
are  very  like  those  in  Isa.  xiv.  i,  ^XlC'n  '^\V  inn. 

The  threefold  occurrence  of  "11^  in  this  verse  is  to  emphasize 
the  fact  that  Judah  and  Jerusalem  would  again  be  restored  to  God's 
favour.  "Zechariah  thrice  [here,  ii.  12,  iii.  2]  repeats  the  promise 
given  through  Isaiah  to  Jerusalem,  before  the  wasting  by  the  Chal- 
djeans,  reminding  the  people  thereby,  that  the  restoration,  in  the 
dawn  whereof  they  lived,  had  been  promised  two  centuries  before  " 
{Pusey). 

CHAPTER     II. 

I.  The  Targ.  renders  "  four  kingdoms,"  and  so  in  verses  2  and  4. 
Michaelis  supposed  the  horns  to  refer  to  two  oxen  running  wild 
in  a  field  of  grass,  so  high  that  nothing  but  their  horns  could  be 


538  ZECIIARIAII   AND    IIIS   rROrilECIES.  [Ch.  ii.2-8. 

seen,  who  desist  from  their  attack  on  the  approach  of  the  plough- 
men accustomed  to  fasten  them  to  the  plough.     But  see  pp.  26,  ff. 

2.  See  remarks  on  pp.  28-30. 

3.  The  four  smiths  are  explained  in  the  Shir  ha-shirim  Rabba 
chap.  ii.  verse  13,  to  be  Elijah,  the  king  Messiah,  Melchizedek,  and 
the  priest  anointed  for  war,  or  Messiah  ben  Joseph  (see  p.  389). 
They  are  differently  explained  in  Succa,  fol.  52,  col.  2,  by  R. 
Channah  bar  Bisna,  as  the  Messiah  ben  David,  the  Messiah  ben 
Joseph,  and  Elijah  and  the  priest  of  righteousness.  ^'^H  is  there  ■ 
taken  in  the  sense  of  architect. 

4.  T'lnn?.  LXX.  tot)  o^vva.1  ai'To.  €t9  i^eipas  avrCjv  to.  T€<Tcrapa 
Kepara,  reading,  perhaps,  nnnn?^  or,  as  Schleusner  thinks,  simply  ex- 
pressing what  they  regarded  to  be  the  sense  of  the  passage,  inasmuch 
as  they  erroneously  took  the  ^n^?  following,  not  as  the  infinitive 
from  HT'j  but  as  the  plural  of  ■T',  and  to  s/iarpai  them  in  their  hands  may 
be  equivalent  to  stir  them  up  to  activity.  The  LXX.  further  inserted 
the  numeral  after  riUipTiS,  in  order  to  render  the  passage  somewhat 
more  intelligible.  The  Arab,  of  course  follows  the  LXX.,  but  not  the 
Syriac.  Blayney  would  read,  partly  following  the  LXX.,  D^S  nnnnp,  to 
sharpen  their  coulter,  in  order  to  use  it  as  an  instrument  of  demolish- 
ing the  horns.  But  in  this  arbitrary  conjecture  he  has  not  been 
followed   by  later   scholars.     "iJl  ^'''^  ''32.      The  Syr.  has  strangely 

rendered  "  who  have  dispersed  Judah  "  by  Va^jj  )J>  j^  ^  .  ;  oilcca  -j 
out.;   " as  the  7nouth  of  a  man  who  does  not  lift  tip  his  head'' 

8.  T?'!',  that  one,  a  strong  demonstrative,  contracted  for  ^.t?'!, 
masculine  here  and  in  Jud.  vi.  20,  but  feminine  2  Kings  iv.  25.  It 
is  compounded  of  ?^,  afterwards  used  in  its  contracted  form  as  the 
article,  and  HT.  Gesen.  §  54,  rem.  2  ;  Ewald  §  103,  d,  and  183,  b\ 
Olsh.  §  loi,  e;  Kalisch  §  xx.  i.  niTlD.  See  note  2,  p.  35.  Plural 
of  extension  (Bottcher  §  694),  used  almost  as  an  adverb  (Gesen. 
100,  2  ;  Kalisch  §  70,  3).  LXX.  KaTa/cdpTrw?,  abundantly,  Symm. 
u.T(.iyi(nw<i,  Theod.  €ts  7rAaT09. 

Aristeas'  letter  to  Philocrates,  which  is  referred  to  by  Josephus, 
A?itiq.Jiid.  xii.  2,  ff.,  and  in  which  a  description  of  Jerusalem  after  the 
restoration  is  given,  may  be  found  in  the  Appendix  to  Havercamp's 
edition  of  Hudson's  Josephus.  The  text  there  given,  as  well  as  that 
by  Hody,  is  very  incorrect.  The  meaning  of  Aristeas  has  been  in 
some  places  mistaken  by  Josephus.     A  critical  edition  of  the  text  of 


Ch.  ii.  9-II-]      CRITICAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  539 

Aristeas,  based  on  a  collation  of  MSS.,  has  been  given  with  an  intro- 
duction and  variants  by  Prof.  M.  Schmidt,  in  the  first  vol.  of  Merx's 
Archiv  filr  Wissenschaftliche  Erforschimg  des  A.  T.  Aristeas  seems 
to  have  been  an  Egyptian  Jew,  and  his  account  of  Jerusalem  and  its 
temple  bears  the  stamp  of  authenticity,  whatever  may  be  thought  of 
his  other  statements.  See  Dr.  J.  Hildesheimer's  Beschreibung  des  hero- 
dianischeti  Tempels  im  Tract.  Aliddoth  und  bei  Flavins  Josephiis,  pub- 
lished in  Jahres-bericht  des  Rabb.  Seminars  filr  das  orthod.  Jiideiithum 
for  5637  (1876-1877),  Berlin.  He  comments  on  the  fragment  extant 
containing  Hecatseus'  description  of  the  Jews.  Hecatfeus  flourished 
under  Alexander  the  Great,  and  was  brought  into  close  connexion 
with  Ptolemy  Lagus  I.  of  Egypt.  He  describes  the  Jews  as  possessing 
many  fortresses  and  towns,  moreover  one  fortified  city,  by  name 
Jerusalem,  fifty  stadia  in  circumference,  and  inhabited  by  120,000 
men.  Samaria  was  at  that  period  a  fortified  town,  as  it  is  mentioned 
in  Euseb.  Chron.  A  description  is  given  by  Hecatseus  of  the  temple 
in  Jerusalem,  which  indeed  bears  the  impress  of  coming  from  one 
who  was  not  quite  correct  in  his  observations,  or  derived  his  know- 
ledge from  hearsay.  His  account  confirms,  however,  Aristeas' 
description  of  the  prosperity  of  Jerusalem  at  that  period. 

10.  ■'fn  ''fn.  An  exclamation  which  does  not  merely  call 
attention,  but  is  always,  more  or  less,  in  accordance  with  its  sound, 
a  cry  indicating  a  feeling  of  pain  on  the  part  of  the  speaker,  often 
arising  from  compassion  (Amos  v.  16;  Jer.  xxii.  18;  i  Kings  xiii. 
30),  or  expressive  of  the  distressing  condition  of  those  addressed,  as 
even  in  Isa.  Iv.  i,  and  here.  It  is  often  used  as  Woe  !  vae  !  But  it 
cannot  be  rendered  thus  in  this  passage.  See  Bottcher's  Proben^  p.  148. 

^'1S  may  mean  to  scatter,  as  in  Ps.  Ixviii.  15  (E.V.  verse  14); 
Ezek.  xvii.  21  ;  though  it  is  better  to  take  it  in  its  more  ordinary 
signification,  as  we  have  done  on  pp.  37,  38.  On  the  various 
readings,  see  note  on  verse  10,  p.  Hi.  It  can  scarcely  be  rendered 
otherwise  when  followed  by  ?.  In  the  sense  of  scattering  it  is  con- 
strued with  ?,  as  in   Ezek.  xvii.    LXX.,  incorrectly,  o-wa^w. 

11.  '2  3  n3£^'1^  The  first  word  in  this  phrase  might  be  regarded 
as  a  synonym  of  03,  as  in  Jer.  xlvi.  19.  The  context,  however,  shows 
that  '3  ri3  is  to  be  explained  after  the  analogy  of  "  the  daughter  of 
Zion "  and  "  the  daughter  of  Jerusalem  "  {i.e.,  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem  in  connexion  with  their  city),  to  signify  the  inhabitants 
of   Babylon.      3^^^   is   here   construed   with    the    accusative,    as   in 


540  ZECHARIAII   AND    IIIS   PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  ii.  II,  12. 

Ps.  xxii.  4  (E.  V.  verse  3) ;  2  Sam.  vi.  2,  etc.,  in  the  sense  "  thou  that 
dwellest  with  the  inhabitants  of  Babylon." 

^D^?Dn.  The  LXX.  give  a  paraphrase  :  ets  2tajv  uvao-oj^co-^e  ol 
KaTOLKovi'Tes  Bvyaripa  Ba/SvXwvo^,  "  let  those  who  dwell  A\'ith  the 
daughter  of  Babylon  return  safe  to  Zion." 

Drake  renders,  "  Ho  !  Zion,  make  haste  to  deliver  thyself,"  and 
translates  the  second  clause,  "  that  remainest  as,"  i.e.,  art  content  to 
remain  as  a  daughter  of  Babylon  ;  but  his  translation  of  the  latter 
clause  expresses  more  than  is  contained  in  the  original. 

12.  '■''  After  glory.'''  See  p. 39.  This  can  scarcely  be  explained 
with  the  Targ.,  "  after  the  glory  which  he  said  he  would  bring  upon 
you,"  or,  as  Dr.  Pusey  explains,  after  the  glory  "  of  which  God  says, 
'  I  will  be  the  glory  in  the  midst  of  you,' "  as  the  article  would  have 
been  used.  The  words  are  not  to  be  viewed  as  part  of  the 
message  of  Jahaveh,  otherwise  he  would  be  considered  as  the  person 
sent.  If  the  sense  of  the  passage  were  as  Pusey  renders,  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  He  hath  sent  me,"  the  emphatic  *<in  would 
have  been  expressed.  But  we  must  either  supply  the  relative,  as 
Kohler,  "  who  hath  sent  me  after  glory,"  or  the  angel  must  be  sup- 
posed merely  to  refer  to  the  Lord's  words,  mingling  with  them  some 
of  his  own.  So  Rosenmuller,  Maurer,  and  others.  Or  we  may, 
with  Ewald,  more  distinctly  regard  these  words  up  to  the  end  of  the 
verse  as  a  parenthetical  insertion  of  the  angel, — the  direct  speech  of 
Jahaveh  being  contained  in  the  next  verse, — which  comes  to  nearly 
the  same  thing.     Hitzig  seems  to  regard  it  as  the  indirect  speech. 

The  inx  is  here  a  preposition,  and  hence  connected  with  the  fol- 
lowing word  by  a  conjunctive  accent.  When  used  as  an  adverb 
immediately  before  a  noun  it  is  marked  by  a  disjunctive,  as  in 
Ps.  Ixxiii.  23.  (See  Delitzsch  on  that  Psalm.)  In  such  cases  as 
Ps.  Ixviii.  26  (E.V.  verse  25)  ;  Gen.  xviii.  5,  where  a  conjunctive 
accent  is  used,  the  construction  is  unaml)iguous,  for  the  adverb  is 
connected  then  with  the  verb  following  ;  while  the  word  here  is 
connected  as  a  preposition  with  the  noun  following.  Hence  Ps. 
Ixxiii.  23  and  this  passage  are  not  parallel.  'YXvz  translation  of 
Neumann,  "  Once  Glory  sent  me  to  the  nations,"  in  which  case 
"  Glory  "  would  be  regarded  as  equivalent  to  "  the  Glory  of  Jahaveh," 
is  at  variance  with  Hebrew  syntax  and  with  the  context  (see  Kohler's 
note).  Bottcher,  in  comparing  Zech.  ii.  12  with  Ps.  Ixxiii.  24,  lays  aside 
the  traditional  accentuation.     But  his  interpretation,  which  supposes 


Ch.  ii.  12.]  CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   CUMM.  54I 

that  the  angel  speaks  of  himself  as  sent  forth  on  an  honourable 
mission,  as  compared  with  other  heavenly  beings  who  are  often  sent 
forth  on  sad  and  disagreeable  errands  (referring  to  2  Sam.  xxiv.  16  ; 
Job.  ii.  6),  does  not  suit  the  context.  We  must  observe,  to  prevent 
some  English  students  from  being  misled,  that  the  interpretation  of 
Dr.  A.  Clarke,  given  in  his  Commentary  as  suggested  to  him  by  "an 
intelligent  correspondent,"  by  which  "11^3  "IHX  is  explained  to  mean 
"  the  future  glory  "  and  considered  as  a  name  of  the  Messiah,  is 
utterly  opposed  to  Hebrew  idiom. 

The  apple  of  his  eye.  This  is  one  of  the  eighteen  places  called 
Dn.?D  J-lpn^  "  the  correction  of  the  scribes."  The  eighteen  are  : — 
Gen.  xviii.  22,  Num.  xi.  15,  Num.  xii.  12,  Num.  xii.  13,  i  Sam. 
iii.  13,  2  Sam.  xvi.  12,  i  Kings  xii.  16,  and  the  parallel  passage 
2  Chron.  x.  16,  Ezek.  viii.  17,  Hab.  i.  12,  Mali.  13,  Zech.  ii.  12, 
Jer.  ii.  11,  Job.  vii.  20,  xxxii.  3,  Hos.  iv.  7,  Lam.  iii.  20,  Ps. 
cvi.  20.  All  these  are  mentioned  in  the  Tanchuma,  though  the 
Mechilta  only  cites  eleven,  omitting  Num.  xii.  13;  2  Sam.  xvi.  12  ; 
Hos.  iv.  7  \  Job  xxxii.  3  ;  Lam.  iii,  20  ;  i  Kings  xii.  16  ;  2  Chron. 
X.  16 ;  and  Gen.  xviii.  22,  and  adding  2  Sam.  xx.  i  ;  but  the 
Mechilta,  at  Exod.  xv.  7,  seems  to  give  no  formal  list.  Buxtorf 
has  enumerated  the  various  corrections  introduced  into  these 
passages,  or  the  most  of  them,  in  his  Lex.  Chald.  et  Talm.  See 
also  Levy's  Chald.  Worterbuch,  and  the  list  of  authorities  on 
the  subject  given  by  Strack  in  his  Prolegomena  Critica  in  Vet. 
Test.  Heb.,  lib.  ii.  §  14,  iv.  Geiger  [Urschrift,  p.  324)  maintains 
that  in  all  these  passages  corrections  were  made  in  the  text  by  the 
scribes  to  avoid  offence  being  taken  with  the  original  readings.  In 
the  passage  in  Zech.,  the  original  reading  seems  to  have  been  'J""!^ 
"  my  eye"  instead  of  fJ''^,  "  his  eye,'^  as  in  the  received  text.  Several 
MSS.  have  the  reading  ''^'0.  The  alteration  was  made,  according  to 
Geiger,  because  it  was  considered  unsuitable  to  speak  of  the  apple 
of  God's  eye;  and  the  object  of  substituting  the  suffix  of  the  third 
person  was  to  make  it  possible  to  explain  the  text  as  referring  to  the 
apple  of  a  man's  eye.  In  Deut.  xxxii,  10,  where  a  similar  idea  occurs, 
it  was  thought  possible  to  give  such  an  interpretation  to  the  text  as 
it  stood.  The  explanation  given  by  Kohler,  however,  is  that  such 
corrections  were  introduced  where  the  scribes  imagined  that  the 
writer,  if  he  had  wished  to  express  the  thought  passing  through  his 
mind,  would  have  written  as  given  in  the  "  corrections,"  but  that  while 


542  ZECHARIAII   AND    HIS   TROPHECIES.        [Ch.  il.  13-17. 

lie  was  in  the  act  of  writing,  he  gave  a  new  turn  to  his  tliouglit. 
In  this  place  the  scribes  considered  that  the  prophet  intended 
to  have  said  that  whosoever  touched  Israel  would  commit  a  sin 
against  Jahaveh  and  also  against  the  apple  of  his  own  eye.  Com- 
])are  Jedidiah  Salomo  Norzi  on  the  passage  as  translated  by 
Delitzsch  in  his  Civnm.  on  Habakkuk^  p.  206,  ff.  The  word  '"133 
is  not  to  be  regarded  with  Gesenius  in  Thcs.  as  for  '">???,  cavity,  as  if 
the  phrase  meant  "  the  door  or  window  of  the  eye,"  but  is  rather 
to  be  regarded  as  a  natural  word  of  endearment  corresponding  to 
the  Lat.  pupa,  indicating  a  doll,  daughter  of  the  eye.  See  Miihlau 
and  Volck's  edition  of  Gesenius'  IVorterb.,  and  Fleischer's  additions 
to  Levy's  Cliald.  IVorterb.,  erster  Band,  p.  419. 

14.  '•^I.  On  the  form  of  the  imperative,  see  Ges.  §  67,  rem.  2  ; 
Kalisch  §  Ixii.  3,  a  ;  Bottcher  §  497,  10.  Tl^at^'l^  perf  with  vav  conv., 
after  the  participle  ^'^,  in  the  sense  of  the  future,  just  as  the  1''i^l  in 
the  preceding  verse  after  ^''30.     Driver  §  113,  i ;  Ges.  §  126,  6,  ^. 

15.  II^JI.  The  LXX.  incorrectly,  but  quoad  sciisum,  koX  Kara- 
(f)€v$uvTaL  Wvrj  ttoXXo.  cm  tov  Kvpiov,  and  similarly  in  Jer.  1.  5  (LXX. 
xxvii.  5),  where  the  same  phrase  occurs  in  the  Hebrew.  Comp. 
Isa.  Ivi.  3,  xiv.  i. 

^nJSK'l,      LXX.  Kat  KaTacrKrjVMdovaLV  Iv  /xicru)  aov. 

16.  Drake  translates,  "shall  take  possession  of  Judah  as  his  in- 
heritance for  a  holy  ground."  But  this  can  scarcely  be  the  meaning 
of  'n  nonx  hv, 

17.  on  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  an  apoc.  imp.  piel  from  HDn^  but 
as  an  onomatopoetic  interjection  used  to    enjoin    silence.     Arab. 

transposed,  ^Uo.  This  interjection  has  however  been  treated  as  a 
verbal  form,  and  a  plural  formed  from  it  -IDD,  Neh.  viii.  11,  as  well  as 
an  imperfect,  Num.  xiii.  30;  Ewald  §  loi,  d,  and  §  106,  a.  Comp. 
the  verbal  root  i^^'ijl,  to  be  silent.  LXX.  cvXa/SiLa-Ou).  A  similar 
translation  is  given  by  them  of  the  word  and  its  derivatives  in 
Num.  xiii.  31  (Heb.  verse  30)  ;  Hab.  ii.  20  ;  Ze])h.  i.  7.  The  Syr. 
has  "  and  all  flesh  shall  fear,"  the  Targ.  "  let  all  the  wicked  fear 
before  the  Lord." 

"ilW  niphal  from  ^^^.  See  Ges.  §  72,  rem.  5  ;  Ewald  §  140,  a, 
at  the  end.  Compare  on  the  subject  matter  of  the  passage,  Ps.  xliv. 
24  (verse  23,  E.  V.). 

//Is  holy  dwelling.  The  same  phrase  is  used  of  the  temple  in  Ps. 
Ixviii.  6  (verse  5  E.  V.)     Comp.  verse  36  (E.V.  35),  and  Ps.  xxvi.  S  ; 


Ch.ii.i7,m.i.]   CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM,  543 

2  Chron.  xxxvi.  15,  here  used  of  heaven,  as  Deut.  xxvi.  15  ;  Jer. 
XXV.  30.  See  Bottcher,  De  Inferis,  §  402,  ff.,  p.  209.  The  LXX. 
translate  here  Ik  vec^cXwv  dyiW  avrov. 

The  following  allusion  is  made  to  this  prophecy,  in  connexion  with 
that  in  Isa.  xi.,  in  the  third  book  of  the  Sibylline  Oracles,  lines  785- 
795,  part  of  which  book  was  probably  composed  by  a  Jew  about 
B.C.  160.  We  quote  from  FriedlieU's  Oracula  Sihyllina,  with  crit. 
commentary  and  a  German  transl.  (Leipzig,  1852), 

evcfipdvOrjTi,  Kopr],  Koi  aydXXeo  '  croX  yap  eSwKev 
evcf)po(Tvvrjv  atwros,  bs  ovpavov  CKTicre  Kat  yyv. 

Ev  croi  8'  otKr^cret  •  aol  8'  ecraeraL  dOdvarov  ^ws. 

Ev  ok  kvKOL  re  koI  apve<;  iv  ovpeaiv  ajxixLy   eSovraL 
■y^opTov,  7rap8dXu<;  t   ept'^ots  oL[xa  /3o(rKy](rovTaL  ' 

ApKTOL  crw  fx6(T)(0i<;  vofxdSes  uvA-ttr^Tycrovrai  ' 
crapKojSopo?  re  Xewv  d)(ypov  ^aycrat  eVt  cf>dTvr]<;, 
0)5  /3ovs  '  Kat  Tra'ioe';  [xdXa  vrjinoi  iv  Secr/xolaiv 
a^ovfTL  '   Trrjpov  yap  etti  ^6ovl  Orjpa  Trot-qcreL. 
Koi  /3pe(jiee(TcrL  SpaKovres  a/x.a  c^icrt  KOLjxrjaovTai, 
KovK  a^LKrjCOvai  '  X'^'-P  T^P  ®^ov  €(ra£T   ctt'  avrovs. 

"  Rejoice,  O  virgin,  and  be  glad,  for  everlasting  gladness  hath  he 
given  to  thee,  who  made  heaven  and  earth.  For  in  thee  he  will 
dwell,  immortal  light  shall  be  to  thee.  Wolves  and  lambs  shall  to- 
gether eat  grass  on  the  mountains,  and  leopards  shall  feed  together 
with  kids  ;  bears  shall  herd  grazing  with  calves  ;  and  the  flesh-eating 
lion  will  eat  straw  at  the  manger  as  an  ox,  and  very  young  children 
shall  lead  them  in  bonds,  for  he  will  make  the  wild  beast  tame  on 
the  earth.  And  dragons  shall  lie  down  with  infants,  and  not  hurt 
them.     For  the  hand  of  God  will  be  upon  them." 

CHAPTER   III. 

I.  T/ie  Adversary.  So  we  render  on  account  of  the  article.  See 
p.  40.  So  LXX.  Kttt  6  StajSoXos,  and  also  in  verses  2,  4,  where  Aquila 
has  6  dvTtKet/x,€i/05,  with  Symm.  and  Theod.  in  verse  2.  Satan  occurs 
without  the  article  as  a  proper  name  in  i  Chron.  xxi.  i ;  Ps.  cix.  6, 
in  which  latter  passage  mention  is  made  of  his  standing  at  the  right 
side  of  the  accused.  The  Targ.  renders  Satan  in  verse  i  by  HNtsn 
and  in  verse  2  by  ^^^H!,  both  meaning  ^^the  Sinner" 


544  ZECIIARIAII    AND    HIS    rROPIIECIES.  [Ch.  iii.  2-7. 

I^i'.  Participle  used  of  continued  action.  On  the  phrase  "stand 
before,"  see  p.  46.  Comp.  Num.  xxii.  22.  t^pb'?.  Note  the  in- 
finitive with  suffix  from  a  form  iPV'*,  the  a  being  attentuated  to  /. 
Ges.  §  6r,  i,  rem.  ;  KaHsch  §  xxxix.  i. 

2.  On  the  word  7-ebuke,  see  the  passages  referred  to  p.  53.  On 
the  Rabbinical  story  concerning  Joshua,  see  note  2,  p.  51.  When 
the  same  words  are  repeated  and  preceded  by  \  as  here,  ("1^3*1— 1^3') 
the  conjunction  is  best  expressed  by  "yea."  Comp.  Ps.  xxvii.  14, 
.n:P.\  -  r\^.;    Job  vi.  29,  after  the  k'ri,  -nc^l - •nc^^. 

"inarij  who  delights  in.  The  participle  denotes  a  present  and 
yet  a  habitual  action,  is  delighting  in,  or  is  choosing.  Drake  supposes 
that  this  is  addressed  ironically  to  Satan,  and  says  this  "  seems 
requisite  to  satisfy  the  parallelism  of  the  Heb.  text ; "  but  in  this  he 
is  mistaken. 

3.  On  the  Targum  see  note  i,  p.  51.  ^'^^  HTi.  On  the  con- 
struction see  Ges.  §  134,  2,  ^;  Ewald  §  168,  d. ;  Kalisch  §  100,  8. 

D\Si^»  Dnn.  Accusative.  See  Ges.  §  118,  3;  Kalisch  §  86,  4,  c. 
The  adjective  ^1^*  only  occurs  in  this  and  the  next  verse,  but  the  noun 
HNV  is  of  more  frequent  occurrence,  and  is  used  of  human  excre- 
ments (Isa.  xxxvi.  12]  2  Kings  xviii.  27).  Note  its  use  in  Isa.  xxxviii.  8, 
as  well  as  in  Isa.  iv.  4,  and  in  Prov.  xxx.  12  (not  xxx.  9  as  referred 
to  on  p.  50).  The  same  word  is  not  used  in  Isa.  Ixiv.  5.  It  is  im- 
possible, therefore,  to  consider  clothing  worn  and  soiled  with  age  to 
be  intended. 

4.  ^^ Before  him."  See  p.  61,  note.  '^'^r'^V  On  const,  of  inf 
al)sol.  here  see  Ges.  §  131,4,  a;  Ewald  §  351,  c ;  Kalisch  §97,  3. 
When  thus  used  for  the  finite  verb,  the  infinitive  is  to  be  rendered  by 
the  tense  of  the  verb  which  it  follows,  and  is  used  to  express  the 
contemporaneousness  of  the  acts.  The  LXX.  consider  it  as  spoken 
to  the  angel  attendants,  and  render  accordingly,  koX  h'Svaan  airov 
TToByprj,  "and  clothe  him  with  robes  fiowing  down  to  the  feet."  Not 
so  the  Syriac.     On  the  mvbna,  see  p.  61. 

6.  "ly*!  imp.  hiphil  from  "11^  with  —  on  account  of  the  guttural. 
See  Ges.  §  72,  rem.  7  ;  Kalisch  §  65,  6 ;  Ewald  §  232,  c. 

7.  That  the  apodosis  is  to  be  regarded  as  commencing  with  thou 
shalt  also  judge,  etc.,  is  clear  from  the  emphatic  nris  before  ri^^i. 
The  change  of  tenses  indeed  commences  with  ^Jj)D?),  but  the 
perf  is  there  construed  with  the  vav.  conv.  (note  the  tone),  and  thus 
is  to  be  regarded  as  subordinated  to  the  preceding  imperfect.     The 


Ch.  iii.  7,8.]      CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  545 

CJJ,  DJ  [also,  also)  is  used  before  the  two  imperfects  to  show  that 
they  form  the  apodosis  of  the  sentence. 

The  verb  Tl  was  originally  |-1'^,  from  which  form  the  niphal  part. 
*''"'J  and  imp.  kal  P'lJ  (Gen.  vi.  3)  occur.  Derivatives  from  this  form 
are  also  found,  as  r1%  according  to  the  k'ri  in  Job  xix.  29,  piD  and  Itl^. 
The  two  forms  are,  however,  found  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  with  a 
decided  difference  in  signification,  pT  being  intrans.,  pi  transitive. 
See  the  Lexicons,  and  Bottcher  §  1141,  1143,  3  ',  also,  on  the  phrase 
here,  the  remarks  on  p.  65. 

D''D?nD.  Gesenius  explains  this  word  as  a  participle  hiphil  from 
"V^,  of  a  Chaldee  form,  for  the  ordinary  participle  would  have  been 
D^3'>P1D.  Hitzig's  objection  to  this  view  is  noted  on  p.  66.  The 
latter  participle  actually  occurs  in  chap.  v.  10,  and  in  eight  other 
places.  See  Fiirst's  Concord.,  under  1^\  On  the  other  hand,  the 
sing.  ■'l^nP  is  found  several  times.  The  plural  here  would  rather  come 
from  a  form  '=1^^'^,  as  2''??nP  would  be  the  plural  from  the  other  form. 
In  the  former  case,  too,  the  prep.  IP  would  have  been  used  instead 
of  P?.  See  Bottcher,  De  Iiiferis,  §§  447,  448,  though  in  his  Lchiincch 
he  has  returned  to  Gesenius'  view,  §§  315,  12;  1013,  b ;  1095,  ^• 
Olshausen  also  defends  the  view  given  above;  see  §  258,  a,  p.  580, 
§  208,  <5,  p.  391.  The  LXX.  have  regarded  the  word  as  a  participle, 
reading  dv^o-rpe^o/teVous,  and  so  Vulg.  ambulatites  and  the  Syriac. 

8,  XJ"1^DL^>.  The  force  of  ^^^  is  to  add  emphasis  to  the  imperative. 
The  gaya  or  metheg  under  the  ^  in  Theile's  edition  is  incorrect, 
and  has  been  omitted  by  Baer  in  his  edition  of  the  Minor  Prophets. 
See  his  article  on  "  Die  Metheg-Setzung,"  §  39,  foot  note,  in  Merx's 
Archiv.         "  Ihose  that  sit  before  thee."     See  p.  68. 

nsiD  '•Ei'JX.  See  the  remarks  on  p.  69,  ff.  LXX.  repaTaa-KOTroi,  well 
explained  by  the  gloss  quoted  by  Schleusner  as  o-qfxeLtiiTLKOL,  o-i;/x,/SoAi- 
KOL,  but  regarded  by  Cyrill,  quoted  by  Field  in  his  edition  of  Or/gen's 
Hexapla,  as  meaning  men  desirous  of  seeing  signs  and  wonders  : 

TCpaTOCTKOTTODS     y€    flT^V     O.VTOV%     6vOfJidt,€i,     TOVTe(TTLV    (let    (TrjjXUa    ^rjTOVVTa^ 

opuv,  Kal  Toiv  Tipdruiv  iffne/jiivovi  '  t^vcru  yap  ttws  aet  tolovtov  i(rTt  to 
Twv  ToiiSatcov  Wvos.  Symm.  Oavpiaa-Toi.  The  Targum  paraphrases  the 
text :  "  Hear  now,  Joshua  the  high  priest,  and  Hananiah,  Misael, 
and  Azariah,  thy  companions  (the  London  Polyglott  omits  these 
names,  but  they  are  given  in  de  Lagarde's  text),  who  sit  before  thee, 
for  they  are  men,  i^D^J  pn"?  -13^0?  jn^B  pi.^l^,  worthy  to  have  a 
wonder  (Lond.  Polygl.  tvonders)  done  to  them,  etc."     Kimchi  has 

N   N 


546  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.    ii.  8. 

followed  this  explanation.  The  mention  of  the  names  of  Hananiah, 
Misael,  and  Azariah  arises  from  the  same  anachronism  which  is 
found  in  the  story  given  on  p.  51,  note  2.  A  further  summary  of 
expositions  is  given  by  Kohler,  p.  125,  note  2. 

Kohler  understands  the  phrase  nov  ''12V  to  mean  "  my  Servant 
who  is  the  Branch,"  and  objects  to  the  latter  word  being  considered 
as  in  apposition  to  "  my  servant,"  inasmuch  as  in  that  case  the  word 
should  have  the  article.  But,  as  Ewald  says  (§  277,  c),  poets  or 
prophets  form  sometimes  new  proper  names  after  their  own  peculiar 
taste,  and  use  such  without  the  article  to  distinguish  them  from 
ordinary  proper  names.     See,  on  the  name,  p.  70. 

Kuencn  in  his  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel  (authorized  English 
translation,  p.  206:  Longmans,  1877)  maintains  that  the  name 
"  Branch  of  Righteousness  "  is  used  in  Jer.  xxiii.,  xxxiii.,  as  a  collec- 
tive, and  signifies  simply  "righteous  kings,"  which  the  prophet 
expected  to  come  from  the  Davidic  dynasty.  His  idea  is  utterly 
opposed  to  the  context  of  those  passages,  and  leaves  out  of  sight 
entirely  the  fact  that  the  term  "  Branch  "  in  Jeremiah  has  been 
borrowed  from  the  earlier  passage  in  Isaiah  iv.  Surely  we  must 
admit,  from  the  lowest  standpoint,  that  Zechariah  was  a  fair  exponent 
of  the  hopes  of  his  nation.  The  object  of  Kuenen  seems  almost 
avowedly  to  be  the  reduction  of  all  the  Messianic  predictions  to  the 
barest  hope  of  some  "  grand  day  coming."  We  protest  against  this 
mode  of  treatment  as  most  *'  unscientific,"  though  made  under  the 
assumption  of  being  the  only  "scientific"  mode  of  regarding  such 
passages. 

The  LXX.  render  nnv  by  dmroX?;,  both  here  and  in  chap.  vi.  12, 
which  word  they  use  sometimes  in  the  sense  of  a  shoot,  as  Ezek.  xvi.  7, 

xvii.  10.  'N\i\g.  orieiis;  Arab.  ^3-^."^  ^'^'^  ^^^^ '^  ^y^*  ^^?  sunrise, 
the  Divine  snnrise.  The  Syr.  Hex.  has  also  the  same  rendering. 
Dean  R.  Payne  Smith  notes  in  his  Thcs.  Syr.  tliat  this  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Hebrew  word  is  not  to  be  despised,  as  noy  is  equivalent 
to   L*lc„  the  shining  or  splendour  of  the  sun.     To  this  phrase  of 

Zccliariah  Simeon  alludes  when  he  calls  the  Messiah  |ico;  ^;  \k^i 
the  rising  coming  from  on  high,  Euke  i.  78.  Tlie  Dean  further 
notes  that  in  Isa.  iv.  2  '^''  nov  is  rendered  by  the  LXX.  eViXa/ii/^ct 
6  6'£o's,  Syr.  [^pc  »  au*j  j,  but  Vulg.  germen  Domini.  From  these 
places  in  the  Syriac  translation  of  the  prophets  the  phrase  is  used, 


Ch.  iii.8-iv.2.]   CRITICx\L   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  547 

"  the  rising  of  the  Messiah/'  and  the  festival  of  Epiphany  is  called 
in  Syriac  "  the  feast  of  the  rising." 

9.     See  remarks  on  p.  71,  ff. 

Observe  the  dual  used  for  the  plural  0!^.''^  nuat^*,  clearly  not  to  be 
taken  as  seven  pair  of  eyes.  See  chap.  iv.  10.  Comp.  D^itJ'r!  Ci'P^ 
three  teeth,  i  Sam,  ii.  13,  and  D.''?^?  ^?r^,  six  wings,  Isa.  vi.  2.  See 
Ges.  §  88,  2,  rem.  ;  Kalisch  §  77,  4;  Ewald  §  180,  a.  X''^  is  here 
treated  as  a  masculine ;  so  in  chap.  iv.  10  ;  Cant.  iv.  9  (kethibh). 

^''  Behold  I  am  graving  its  graving^  Kimchi  understands  this  to 
mean,  I  will  finish  the  stone  in  all  its  preparation  for  the  building ; 
for  he  notices  that  the  last  thing  in  connexion  with  the  preparation 
of  a  precious  stone  is  the  engraving — the  ornamentation  upon  it. 
The  Syr.  translates  "  I  will  open  its  gates,"  possibly  meaning  the 
doors  of  the  completed  temple.  The  LXX.  iSou  eyw  opwo-ca  /360pov, 
*'  behold  I  will  dig  a  trench"  possibly  reading  nng,  an  opening,  as 
Schleusner,  or  perhaps  rather  rins^  a  pit,  which  translation  has  been 
explained  by  Jerome  and  Cyrill  as  containing  a  reference  to  the 
wounds  of  Christ.  Aquila,  StayXu^w  di/oty/xara  avT^<s.  Symm., 
yXvij/w  yap  Trjv  yXvcftrjv  avTov.  Targ.  ^^nn^O  v5  NJi^  XH,  "  behold  I 
will  reveal  its  (the  stone's)  visions,"  the  meaning  of  which  is  obscure. 

^jyip'Dlj  perf.  with  vav  conv.,  used  as  a  prophetic  perfect  after  the 
participle  preceding.     Comp.  note  on  chap.  ii.  14. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

1.  See  note  i,  p.  81.      It^l,  see  note  on  "itW,  chap.  ii.  17. 

2.  "  And  I  said."  So  we  read  with  the  k'ri,  very  many  MSS., 
and  all  the  ancient  versions,  and  this  reading  is  adopted  in  our 
A.  V.  The  received  text,  however,  is  lOXM^  "and  he  said."  Ewald 
explains  this  reading  as  an  Aramaism  for  I'OX'i,  in  his  Lehrbuch,  §  45, 
d,  but  in  this  he  seems  to  be  mistaken. 

Instead  of  1^?.^),  "  and  its  bowl"  some  MSS.  have  ^}\,  " a7id  a 
bowl."  The  LXX.  and  Syr.  do  not  express  the  suffix,  but  this  is  no 
decisive  proof  that  they  had  a  different  reading.  The  form  '"i?5 
occurs  in  the  next  verse.  Perhaps  the  form  which  occurs  here  is  for 
i^p/^  (comp.  Eccl.  xii.  6)  ;  see  Delitzsch  on  Ps.  xxvii.  5,  foot-note, 
and  Bottcher,  §  734,  b.     The  Vulgate  translates  it  by  "  lanipas  ejus." 

nyaci  ny2t^.    There  has  been  much  discussion  among  scholars 


548  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    rROniECIES.  [Ch.  iv.  3. 

whether  these  words  are  to  be  taken  distributively,  indicating  that 
each  lamp  had  seven  pipes,  in  which  case  the  number  of  the  pii)es 
would  be  forty-nine,  or  whether  they  are  to  be  taken  accumulatively, 
"  seven  and  seven,"  that  is  fourteen  pipes  in  all,  in  which  case  each 
lamp  was  provided  with  two  pipes.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the 
cardinals  are  usually  repeated  without  the  copula  intervening  when 
intended  to  be  understood  distributively,  as  in  Gen.  vii.  2,  3,  9  ;  i 
Kings  xviii.  13 ;  and  as  in  the  case  of  other  words,  Zech.  xii.  12  ;  Gen. 
xxxii.  17  ;  Num.  xvii.  17.  It  is  argued  by  Keil  that  the  intervention 
of  the  1.  does  not  prevent  the  number  being  used  distributively,  and 
an  appeal  is  made  to  2  Sam.  xxi.  20,  and  i  Chron.  xx.  6,  where  it  is 
said  of  a  giant  at  Gath  that  his  fingers  and  his  toes  were  '1^1  t^'w'l  C'l", 
making  "four  and  twenty  in  number."  Keil  maintains  that  this 
ought  to  be  explained  that  the  fingers  of  his  two  hands  and  the  toes 
of  his  two  feet  were  six  each.  It  appears,  however,  to  us  that  the 
d"1  ti'ii'  is  here  rather  to  be  understood  accumulatively,  six  and 
six  =  twelve,  and  that  the  number  twelve  is  to  be  considered  as  predi- 
cated separately  of  "  the  extremities  of  his  hands,"  or  the  fingers,  and 
of  "  the  extremities  of  his  feet,"  or  the  toes.  In  i  Chron.  xx.  6, 
the  same  fact  is  stated  in  slightly  different  words,  K'K'I  ^^^  vni'^VXl 
msi  Wl^V,  "  and  his  extremities  (fingers  and  toes)  were  six  and  six 
(  =  12),  four  and  twenty,"  that  is,  each  set  consisted  of  that  number. 
No  other  examples  are  cited  of  words  or  numerals  used  distributively 
having  a  copula  between  them,  and  these  instances  are  inconclusive. 
The  text  therefore  seems  to  indicate  that  each  lamp  had  two  pipes, 
and  that  the  whole  number  of  such  pipes  was  fourteen.  This  is  the 
opinion  of  Kalisch  (Gram.  §  91,  7,  footnote),  and  of  Kohler,  who 
considers  that  the  number  was  thus  expressed  in  order  to  indicate  that 
the  second  seven  pipes  ought  to  be  sought  for  in  a  dififerent  place 
from  the  first,  and  that  seven  of  the  pipes  are  to  be  regarded  as  con- 
necting the  lamps  with  the  reservoir  and  the  other  seven  as  connecting 
the  lamps  with  one  another.  Hitzig  regards  the  ny^'J*  before  iTTinJ 
as  a  mistake,  and  would  read  "  and  its  lamps  upon  it  were  seven," 
referring  to  Exod.  xxv.  37,  xxxvii.  23,  where,  however,  as  Maurer 
notes,  the  collocation  is  quite  natural,  as  the  candlestick  is  there 
mentioned  for  the  first  time ;  but  it  would  not  be  natural  here,  where 
only  a  reference  is  made  to  it.  Ewald,  after  the  LXX.,  would  erase 
the  former  of  the  two  words,  nyi'C'l  nyat^',  which  emendation  has 
also  been  made  in  our  A.V.,  and  is  approved  by  Henderson.     The 


Ch.iv.  3-7-]        CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  549 

Vulg.  only  expresses  one  seven  {et  septem  infusoria  lucernis).  Pressel's 
translation  "  seven  (was)  the  number  of  its  lamps  above  the  same, — 
seven,  and  seven  the  number  of  its  pipes,"  as  if  the  number  was  re- 
peated on  account  of  its  importance  as  corresponding  with  the  seven 
eyes  of  God,  is  scarcely  in  accordance  with  Hebrew  idiom.  The 
LXX.,  like  the  Vulg.,  render  mpVID  by  eVaptio-TptSes,  vessels  for  pour- 
ing in  the  oil.     The  Syr.  translates  that  word  by     ilcoa  "  viojiths." 

4.  ''J"'^.  The  LXX.  have  Kvpu,  not  however  necessarily  reading 
VI X.     Aq.  and  Symm.  have  KvpU  fxov. 

^.  TVa  non  riD  On  the  construction,  see  Ges.  §  121,  2;  Ewald 
§  297,  If;  Kalisch  §78,  5. 

6.  /Ti^  ii.7>.  The  LXX.  have  ovk  eV  SwdfUL  /xeyaXjy,  which  is  simply 
a  free  translation. 

7.  pnjn  "in.  On  the  use  of  the  article  before  the  adjective  and 
not  before  the  noun,  see  Ewald  §  293,  a;  Ges. §  in,  2,  a;  Kalisch 
§  Ixxxiii.  15,  c.  This  construction  is  used  in  the  older  language 
when  greater  emphasis  is  to  be  placed  on  the  adjective. 

Wiinsche  is  quite  correct  in  stating  that  the  passage  referred  to, 
p.  96,  note  2,  occurs  in  Baba  bathra,  3  ^.  This  reference  was  printed 
in  the  proof-sheet  as  36,  hence  our  mistake.  The  passage  occurs  also 
in  Arachin,  6,  a.  The  citation  is  also  given  in  Bacher,  Agada  der 
babylonischen  Amor  der,  Budapest,  1878,  p.  44. 

The  Targ.  is  5<^l1  ^53-"ilt  oni^.  N'Fi^'sp  Nn-isbo  "•pi'-i  N3^^n  T\yi.  KD 
:  KniD^O  b?  tDl'pEJ'M.  TPIi'^^P  ^''W?  "fP**."!!  NH'-K^  n:i  "Oyy  X'^'P'^P?  "What 
art  thou  esteemed,  O  Rome,  foolish  kingdom,  before  Zerubbabel  ? 
shall  it  not  be  as  a  valley  ?  and  he  will  reveal  the  Messiah, 
whose  name  was  spoken  of  from  ancient  times,  and  he  shall  rule 
over  all  the  kingdoms."  The  Lond.  Polyglott  omits  the  name 
"Rome."  The  same  interpretation  is  given  in  Bereshith  Rabba  on 
Gen.  xxviii.  10,  in  connexion  with  this  passage,  "that  mountain  is 
the  Messiah,  and  he  has  this  name,  because  he  is  exalted  above 
the  Patriarchs." — Schottgen,  De  Messia,  p.  100  (from  Raymondus 
Martini).  Such  an  interpretation  is  however  opposed  to  the  context, 
though  Henderson  explains  the  passage  very  similarly. 

■ilE^''P7.  The  LXX.  have  toO  KaropOwaai,  regarding,  perhaps,  the 
Hebrew  noun,  as  Schleusner  conjectures,  as  a  sort  of  infinitive. 

And  he  shall  bring  forth.  The  LXX.  is  almost  unintelligible,  and 
it  is  evident  that  they  did  not  understand  the  meaning  of  the  passage, 


550  ZECIIARIAII   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.         [Cli.  iv.9,  lo. 

Kat  iioicro)  tov  XlOovtti^  KXT/povo/xias  (Schleusner  suggests  that  they  read 
np'n^  for  nJ^NTHj  Aq.  has  tov  TrpoiTevovTo)  hnWrjTa  )((ipLTo<;  •^dpira  av-nj'i. 
In  the  second  part  they  seem  to  have  connected  niSt^n  in  some  way 
with  1^}^.     Aquila  makes  the  same  mistake,  translating  it  i^ta-oxrci 

•X    J  y       p    •>     ?  BO  r  -»ir 

XaptTo?,  and  similarly  the  Syriac  jvo^>;.r.  jZa.a»>    JA.^.;  |j>|o\  ^021  jo 

"and  he  brought  forth  the  most  excellent  stone  of  equality  and  mercy," 
and  even  the  Vulg.,  "et  educet  lapidem  primarium,  et  exsquabit 
gratiam  gratios  ejus." 

^J;^'N■|^  pxn.  The  top-stone.  P^n  is  not  to  be  viewed  as  in  the 
const,  state,  as  even  Kalisch  (§  Ixxxiii.  13)  regards  it;  nL*'X"in  is 
rather  to  be  taken,  with  Kohler,  as  standing  in  apposition  to  P'^'i, 
and  is  to  be  considered  as  a  fem.  formation  from  E^'fr'"'.  The  ending 
is  marked  with  raphe  to  prevent  its  being  taken  for  the  suffix  1^7, 
and  is,  as  Kohler  notes,  an  instance  which  proves  that  when  the 
fact  of  the  raphe  is  specially  noted  by  the  Masorites,  the  ^7  is  not 
always  to  be  considered  simply  as  the  softened  fem.  suffix,  as  Ewald 
thinks  (§  21,/,  3  ;  §  247,  d),  for  it  must  here  be  the  fem.  termina- 
tion, since  the  word  has  the  article,  and  the  tone  is  on  the  ultimate. 
See  Bottcher  §  418,  2,  foot  note. 

niX'J'n  is  not  the  subject  of  the  verb  substantive  understood,  but 
the  ace.  of  nearer  definition,  7i.nth  shoutings.  Ewald  §  204,  a ;  Ges. 
§  118,  3  ;  Kalisch  §  86,  4,  c. 

10.  t?  for  p  from  T-12  as  np  for  HO,  Isa.  xliv.  18.  See  Ges. 
§  72,  rem.  8  ;  Kalisch  §  Ixv.  23.  m^np  fem.  used  as  a  neuter,  as 
frequently.  Compare  the  singular  in  Num.  xxii.  18.  For  a  similar 
interrogation  comp.  Isa.  xliv.  10. 

1X11  inot^l.  One  compound  notion  is  expressed  by  the  two 
verbs,  so  that  the  first  is  almost  equivalent  to  an  adverb  (see  Ges. 
§  142,  3,  a;  Kalisch  §104,  i).  These  perfects  can  scarcely  in  this 
connection  be  rendered  as  prophetic,  as  our  A.V.,  "  for  they  shall 
rejoice  and  shall  see,  etc."  There  is  a  contrast,  as  Pusey  remarks, 
drawn  between  the  first  and  second  part  of  the  verse,  and  hence  the 
verbs  which  express  that  contrast  are  placed  first. 

7n2n  \1'^T\.  Compare  note  on  ch.  v.  8.  The  second  word  stands 
in  apposition  to  the  first,  " ///^  stone,  the  tin  "  (see  Ges.  §  no,  2,  c). 
It  can  scarcely  be,  as  Ewald  maintains  (referring  to  chap.  iii.  9,  and 
comparing  Job.  xix.  24),  a  stone  into  which  lead  is  molten.  Compare 
an-jn  nhb.^'n,  "///^  rcwraths,  the  go/if"  for  '' t/w  wreaths  of  gold"  (Exod. 


Ch.iv.  11,12.]    CRITICAL   AND    GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  55I 

xxxix.  17)  It  corresponds,  as  Philippi  notes  (JVesen  u.  Ur sprung 
d.  Status  Const,  p.  37),  exactly  with  the  Arabic  c4_^j.)j  Xx^^S  ^^  the 
image,  the  gold"  for  the  golden  image.  So  also  2  Kings  xvi.  14. 
T\^T\ly\  natOn.  LXX.  rov  XiOov  Tov  Ka(T(Tnipivov,  Symm.  tov  Ke^oipia-- 
fxivov,  Vulg.  lapidem  stanneian. 

The  Targ.  understands  the  subject  of  the  verbs  '11  '^1  to  be  the 
persons  alluded  to  as  despising  the  day  of  small  things  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  verse.  It  renders  n'px  r\Vi1V^  by  T/?^?  r??75  ^V^^,  "  seven 
rows  (of  stones)  as  these."  The  Targum  translates  the  clause  at  the 
end  of  the  verse  by  a  very  loose  and  inaccurate  paraphrase,  "  the 
works  of  the  sons  of  men  in  all  the  earth  are  revealed  before  the 
Lord."  Vulg.,  '^Quis  enim  despexit  dies  parvos?  (LXX.  SioVt  rts 
e^ovSeVcocrev  ci's  i^yae/jas  [XLKpd<s;)  et  Istabuntur,  et  videbunt  lapidem 
stanneum  in  manu  Zorobabel.  Septem  ipsi  oculi  sunt  Domini  qui 
discurrunt  in  universam  terram." 

12.  ^Fip^no.  The  ^  is  without  daghesh  on  account  of  the  daghesh 
which  immediately  follows.  Comp.  the  preceding  \^P''"lO  (verse  11). 
See  Baer's  edition.  The  original  form  of  the  numeral  in  Hebrew 
seems  to  have  been  Q^JIip?^,  hence  ^''.B^  with  daghesh  forte,  then  Q^"??' 
with  irregular  daghesh  lene,  in  later  times  pronounced  0!^?^^,  but 
not  so  written  (Wright's  Aral>.  Gramm.,  vol.  i.  p.  288,  2nd  edit.). 
Olshausen,  however,  takes  a  different  view,  §  81,  a. 

\??.^  from  B?^^',  pi.  ^  Vt}^,  where  the  ~  preserves  the  0  sound ;  the 
construct  v5t^  for  v?t^'  is  simply  to  make  the  daghesh  more  audible. 
See  Ges.  §  10,  2,  rem.  Comp.  Bottcher  §  367,  e.  There  is  no  neces- 
sity, as  Bottcher  notes  in  the  same  place  (footnote  2),  to  assume,  with 
Fijrst,  a  special  form  nSat^  on  account  of  a  supposed  difference 
of  meaning;  ^^Ji*  seems  (see  Miihlau  and  Volck's  Gesem'us'  Wor- 
te7-b.)  to  have  the  meaning  of  to  hang  down.  The  verb  is  used  in 
the  fifth  conj.  in  Arabic  of  the  heavens  hanging  doivn,  beginning  to 
rain,  hence  npbp'  in  the  sense  of  a  stream.  Comp.  the  fact  that  the 
reservoir  of  rain  in  the  heavens  is  termed  in  Ps.  Ixv.  10  (E.V.  verse 
9),  '■'■the  brook  of  God''  (i^'''!'^^  H^)-,  on  which  passage  see  Delitzsch, 
Hupfeld  and  Perowne ;  the  latter  scholars  cite  the  Arabic  proverb 
regarding  the  rain  mentioned  by  Schultens,  namely,  "  when  the  river 
of  God  comes,  the  river  Isa  (in  Bagdad)  ceases."  From  the  same 
idea  of  hanging  down  comes  the  meaning  of  ears  of  corn,  and  here 
the  points  of  the  olive  twigs.     Blayney  is  wrong  in  translating  this 


552  ZECIIARIAH   AND   IIIS   PROPHECIES.      [Ch.  iv.  13,  14. 

word  ^' ordercrs,"  which  is  simply  an  invented  meaning,  and  in 
supposing  that  two  beings  in  human  shape  were  seen  by  the 
prophet. 

nt"ii"|i3.V  masc,  and  probably  from  a  masc.  sing.  '''?^V,  as  Gesenius 
has  given  it  in  his  Thesaurus,  for  masculine  nouns  indicating  tools, 
or  utensils,  have  generally  plurals  in  01—  It  might  also  come  from 
a  fem.  form  nn^ilV,  which  Furst  prefers.  See  however  Bottcher 
§  7 16,  5.  It  is  not  to  be  rendextd presses,  as  Hengstenberg.  The  word 
is  onomatopoetic,  from  the  rusJmig,  gurgling  sound,  and  is  clearly 
connected  with  "T'^V,  a  7i<atei-falL  The  doubling  in  the  latter  case  cor- 
responds to  the  n  which  is  inserted  in  in3V  (see  Bottcher  §  300  b). 
The  LXX.  have  /xv^ojT^pe?,  fioses,  beaks.  So  Syr.  Vulg.  rostra. 
Lange  strangely  imagines  that  '^  is  compounded  of  IV,  a  ihor?i,  and 
PI'?,  to  rub,  and  understands  it  of  sharp  golden  points  standing 
erect  for  the  purpose  of  splitting  the  olives  and  making  the  oil  flow. 
But  independently  of  other  reasons,  this  derivation  appears  philo- 
logically  impossible.  Neither  is  Pressel's  explanation  tenable,  that 
fruit-baskets  are  meant,  for,  not  to  mention  other  reasons,  the  words 
into  which  he  divides  the  assumed  compound  are  not  found  in  the 
exact  sense  required. 

The  expression  T?  simply  signifies  by  means  of,  and  is  used  gene- 
rally with  reference  to  personal  agents,  though  sometimes  more  gene- 
rally, as  in  Job  viii.  4;  Prov.  xviii.  21  ;  Isa.  Ixiv.  6,  and  here.  There 
is  no  reason  to  think  that  in  the  first  three  passages  the  agent  is 
personified,  as  Dr.  Pusey  considers,  and  there  is  no  personification  in 
this  passage,  even  were  we  to  suppose  with  him  "  that  these  two 
pipes  were  symbols  of  living  agents  "  not  mentioned  by  the  prophet. 
Compare  also  the  kindred  expressions  in  2  Sam.  xv.  2  ;  Deut.  ii.  37  ; 
Ps.  cxl.  6,  etc. 

Which  pour  forth  the  gold,  that  is,  the  golden  oil,  which  flowing 
forth  from  golden  pipes  into  a  golden  bowl,  and  seen  in  the  light 
of  the  lamps,  seemed  to  be  golden,  von  Hofmann  and  Kliefoth 
strangely  think  that  actual  gold  is  signified,  and  the  latter 
imagines  that  not  only  the  oil  proceeded  from  the  olive  trees  which 
fed  the  lamps,  but  also  the  gold  of  which  the  candlestick  itself  was 
composed. 

14.  Kliefoth  maintains  that  the  expression  inV*n  properly  signi- 
fies oil  for  burtiing  in  the  lamps.  But  this  distinction  between  the  oil 
for  anointing  and  the  oil  for  burning,  insisted  on  by  Kliefoth,  does 


Ch.iv.i4-v.3-]    CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  553 

not  really  exist,  as  Keil  has  shown.  For  \^p  is  not  only  used  for 
anointing  oil,  but  also  for  the  oil  burned  in  the  lamps,  as  Exod. 
xxvii.  20;  Lev.  xxiv.  2,  where  the  ^//  /or  hirnitig^  is  described  as 
n^t  t'^v''  The  same  expression  is  used  of  the  anointing  oil,  Exod. 
XXX,  24,  The  latter  is  termed  nn^sn  ^'^  {Exod.  xxix.  7,  xxxi.  11, 
etc.),  while  the  oil  for  burning  is  ll^^'?'?  ^^  (Exod.  xxv.  6,  xxxv.  8), 
The  oil  for  burning  is  never  called  "''7V!',  though  that  word  occurs 
frequently  where  oil  is  spoken  of  as  a  product  of  the  land  (Num. 
xviii,  12;  Deut.  vii,  13,  xi,  14,  etc.),  "'v'y?  is  the  oil  viewed  as  the 
sap  of  the  olive,  the  natural  product  of  the  country,  while  I'P^J'  is 
more  particularly  the  oil  considered  as  prepared  for  use,  LXX. 
ot  8uo  viol  Trj'i  TTioTT^TOS,  Aq.  (TTiXTrvoTrjTos,  Symm,  iXaiov. 

PK1T73  inS'py.  The  article  is  omitted  before  I^IX  because  it  is 
in  the  construct  state. 

CHAPTER   V. 

1,  The  LXX.  have  hpi-n-avov,  a  sickle,  taking  H^jp  as  i.q.  ^\1P. 
The  other  Greek  versions  render  correctly,  Aq.  and  Theod.,  ^K^Oipa, 
Symm.  xec^aXts,  or,  according  to  another  reading,  dX-qjxa. 

2,  noi^n  DntJ'l^j  Ht,  tiventy  by  the  cubit.     Similar  expressions  occur 
in  Exod.  xxvi.  8,  xxvii,  9,  18,  xxxvi.  15.     See  Ges.  §   120,  4,  rem.  2 
Kalisch  §  xc,  14. 

3,  n^xn.  LXX,  correctly  17  dpa,  Symm.,  in  plural,  ot  opKoi.  Aq. 
wcravTcos.       pxn"?3.  See  remarks  on  p.  108. 

'^.)P~'^:|'?,  071  this  side  and  on  that  (Exod.  xxxii,  15  ;  Num.  xxii.  24; 
Ezek.  xlvii,  7),  This  is  evidently  the  meaning,  as  appears  from  the 
close  connexion  of  n-|JD  -with  C'^^l-  Kohler  regards  the  construction 
of  i^i^^  as  a  const,  prsegnans  (Ges.  §  141),  and  considers  the  demonst. 
pronouns  to  refer  to  the  land  of  Israel,  "  from  this,"  scil.  land.  So 
Drake,  appealing  to  Gen.  xxxvii.  17  ;  Exod.  xi.  i  ;  Deut.  ix.  12.  HpJ 
is  of  course  a  prophetic  perfect.  There  is  no  doubt  that  HTO  might 
mean  hence,  but  the  reduplication  of  it  evidently  implies  a  contrast. 
It  does  indeed  occur  twice  in  Exod.  xi.  i,  but  in  a  very  different 
connexion.  If  it  was  to  be  connected  with  the  verb  it  should  have 
stood  immediately  before  or  after  it,  not,  as  here,  before  'l'"^?, 
which  precedes  the  verb.  Hence  we  agree  with  Keil  in  considering 
the  reference  to  be  made  to  the  two  sides  of  the  flying  roll.  Comp. 
Vulg.  "  quia  omnis  fur,  sicut  ibi  scriptum  est,  judicabitur;  et  omnis 
jurans  ex  hoc  similiter  judicabitur." 


554  ZECIIARIAH   AND   IIIS   PROniECIES.  [Ch.  v.  3-6. 

iTiQ3.  In  the  first  place  where  this  word  occurs  in  the  verse,  the 
LXX.  read  €ws  Oavdrov  ;  the  text  of  Tischendorf  omits  it  altogether 
in  the  second  place,  but  the  cod.  Alex,  and  other  MSS.  (see  Field's 
Hexapl.')  read  also  there  eojs  Oavdrov.  They  probably  read  n-1D7. 
Comp.  the  rendering  of  '^^^  by  the  LXX.  in  Isa.  liii.  8. 

•^I^?.     See  note   on  p.  108.      The  LXX.  render  it  iKSLKYjOrjaeTaL. 

Symm.  ^U-qv  Swo-et.  Syr  \^],  shall  be  justified.  The  Targ.  ''iP.P,  shall 
be  struck,  seems,  with  the  LXX.  and  Vulg.  judicabitur,  to  have  con- 
sidered np3  to  mean  the  same  as  ^33. 

4.  0^^'^^.'''^  is  the  perf.  prophetic,  and  i^'??'',  the  perf  with  vav 
conversive ;  pashta  being  a  postpositive  has  to  be  repeated  over  the 
real  tone  syllable. 

n.^/.  3rd  pers.  sing.  perf.  kal  from  it?  or  v>,  for  Hjp,  which 
is  the  reading  of  one  MS.  See  P^wald  §  38,  b,  y,  §  173,/;  Ges.  §  73,  2, 
rem.  i;  Kalisch  §xxxviii.  i  b ;  Bottcher  §  349,/,  §  498,  17,  §  928,  2. 
Though  this  is  the  only  instance  of  such  attenuation  in  the  verb,  it 
is  found  also  in  a  participle  nniT  (Isa.  lix.  5),  and  in  other  words. 
Bottcher  suggests  that  the  object  of  it  was  to  give  an  air  of  lamenta- 
tion to  the  word. 

in731.  3rd  pers.  fem.  Avith  suff.  for  •inpi'3,  see  Ges.  §  75, 
rem.  1 9.  The  perfects  are  to  be  viewed  as  instances  of  the  proph, 
perfect.     On  the  subject  matter,  comp.  i  Kings  xviii.  38. 

5.  Targ.  r?^  "QT^:  \'0  \tni,    "  and   see  who  are  these  who  appear." 

6.  The  Syr.  gives  an  interpretation  rather  than  a  translation  of 
the  verse,  "  and  I  said,  what  is  this  ?  And  he  said  to  me,  this  is  a 
measure  which  is  going  forth,  and  in  it  are  the  sins  of  the  whole 
earth."  LXX.  avTiq  -fj  dSiKta  avTMv,  as  if  reading  DMV  for  Q^'J?.  This  is 
said  to  be  the  reading  of  one  MS.,  that  is,  as  far  as  regards  the  con- 
sonants, but  query  as  to  the  vowel  points  ?  Jerome  lias  noted  that  if 
the  Hebrew  word  had  a  vav  instead  of  a  yod,  "rccte  legeretur  OXAM 
ut  LXX.  putaverunt."  Symm.,  more  correctly,  tt^os  tovto  aTro^XeTrovcrt. 
Other  commentators,  as  Rosenmiiller,  explain  "  this  is  their  appear- 
ance," comparing  Lev.  xiii.  55;  Num.  xi.  7.  See  p.  114,  ff.  Duhm 
(£>ie  Thcologie  der  Propheten,  p.  317)  has  an  extraordinary  idea,  that 
py  is  to  be  here  taken  in  the  sense  of  "  spirit,  angel,"  the  woman 
being  regarded  as  the  personification  of  sin. 

The  Targum  paraphrases  the  rest  of  the  chapter  thus  :  "  And  he 
said.  These  are  the  peoples  (^«^»oy  de  Lagarde)  who  received  and 
gave  false  measures,  and  he  said,  Lo  !  they  are  manifested  before  all 


Ch.  V.  6,  7-]        CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  555 

the  dwellers  on  the  earth.  (7)  And  behold  swift  peoples  shall  carry 
them  away  with  speed,  and  other  peoples  shall  come  and  shall  dwell 
in  their  place,  because  they  received  and  gave  false  measures.  (8) 
And  he  said,  On  account  of  this  they  were  condemned  and  were 
brought  away  into  exile,  because  they  received  and  gave  false 
measures,  and  other  peoples  came,  and  they  dwelt  in  their  room. 
(9)  And  I  lifted  up  mine  eyes,  and  behold  two  lands  were 
seen,"  i;^l  p;iP  r^l^ii,  i.e.,  Israel  and  Judah.  The  Lond.  Polygl.  adds, 
"  among  the  kingdoms  of  the  peoples  of  the  earth,"  but  these 
words  are  not  in  de  Lagarde's  text, — "  and  swift  peoples  took  them 
away  captive  with  speed  as  the  eagle  flieth  [Deut.  xxviii.  49],  and 
they  caused  the  people  to  migrate  who  received  and  gave  false 
measures  among  the  kingdoms  of  the  peoples  of  the  earth  under 
the  whole  heaven.  (10)  And  I  said  to  the  angel  who  talked 
with  me,  Whither  are  they  removing  the  people  who  received  and 
gave  false  measures?  (11)  And  he  said  to  me,  To  prepare  for  them 
a  place  in  the  province  of  Babylon,  and  they  shall  be  kept  and  tarry 
there  till  their  time  shall  come." 

7.  Ewald  {^Lehrbuch,  §  174,  c,  /3)  seems  to  consider  "i|3  as  a 
feminine,  when  used  in  the  signification  of  a  "  cover T  As  a  noun 
signifying  a  portion  of  the  earth's  surface  (as  in  Gen.  xiii.  11),  it 
would  come  under  §  174,  <^.  But  "13?  is  used  as  a  fem.  in  all  its 
significations,  even  where  it  denotes  a  7ueight  of  metal.  2  Kings  v.  5 
is  conclusive  on  this  point.  Pressel  is  wrong  in  stating  that  it  is 
masculine  (see  Bottcher  §  654).  The  word  has  two  plurals,  the 
masc.  form  D''!??,  used  for  that  which  is  valuable  (i  Chron.  xxii. 
14,  xxix.  7),  and  the  fem.  form  rin33,  for  that  which  is  common  or 
comparatively  valueless,  e.g.  of  bread,  Judg.  viii.  5  (see  Bottcher 
§  712,  y,  and  719,  y). 

nxb':.  Participle  fem.  niphal  (Ewald  §  240,  d).  It  might,  as  far 
as  form  is  concerned,  be  perf.  niphal  3rd  pers.  sing.  fem.  (i  Chron. 
xiv.  2  ;  Ewald  §  194,  F).  A  second  pers.  fem.  cannot  of  course  be 
thought  of  here.  Kohler  views  it  as  used  in  a  reflexive  sense 
"  lifted  itself  up." 

Pressel  renders  the  second  sentence,  "  and  this  one  woman  car- 
ried," supplying  HXD'J  from  the  preceding  sentence,  or  a  corresponding 
nxl"3.  Rashi's  rendering  is  better,  '1J1  nns  nL*'X  n5<n  nil;  ^n^Si. 
The  rii^T  points  out  the  woman  (SetKTtKws)  as  the  i^^n  preceding.  It 
has  the  disjunctive  pashta  which  shows  that  the  punctuators  regarded 


556  ZECHARIAH   AND   IIIS   PROniECIES.        [Ch.  v.  7-11. 

it  almost  as  a  kind  of  interjection.  Hitzig  similarly  renders  J^^^^  as 
an  adverb,  "  and  there  !  "  But  the  fem,  nXT  is  not  elsewhere  so  used, 
though  HT  often  occurs  in  that  signification.  The  LXX.  have  koL 
I80V  yvvT]  fxta.  rinx  is,  as  Kohler  observes,  not  used  as  a  sort  of  in- 
definite article,  as  Maurer  and  Drake  suppose,  but  in  its  proper 
signification  as  a  numeral,  "  one." 

8.  'N  w'^*''\  LXX.  Koi  ippiij/ev  avTTjv,  but  Theod.  has  kavT-qv,  which 
would  signify,  as  Jerome  has  noted,  that  she  threw  herself  down 
inside  the  ephah  to  hide  herself  from  the  angel,  which  of  course  is 
impossible. 

Drake  suggests  that  we  ought  to  read  ]1^^  10/iccl,  in  place  of  I^?, 
with  the  view  of  making  the  phrase  signify  a  circle  of  lead,  as  in 
verse  7.  The  simple  meaning  of  the  phrase,  however,  is  that  the 
talent  weight  was  itself  formed  of  lead.  The  word  P^  is  also  used, 
as  here,  in  other  places  in  the  signification  of  "a;  weight ;"  so  Deut. 
XXV.  13;  Prov.  xvi.  11 ;  comp.  2  Sam.  xiv.  26. 

The  explanation  '•'■upon  the  month  of  the  ephah''''  (see  p.  116) 
can  be  defended  by  comparing  such  expressions  as  1^?^  ^?,  Gen. 
xxix.  2  ;  ^IXp  ^3,  Ps.  cxli.  7. 

9.  '"i^,V''^!l  for  niSil'jTllj  which  is  the  reading  of  many  INTSS.,  see 
Ges.  §  74,  rem.  4  ;  Ewald  §  198,  b.  Dn*n332^  masculine  for  fem. 
See  next  verse  also.  One  of  Baer's  MSB.  has  ID^S^^n.  See  Ges. 
§  121,  6,  rem.  i  ;  Ges.  Lehrg.  p.  731  ;  Kalisch  §  77,  21,  2. 

10.  TXO'Pi^  masc.  for  fem.  Comp.  Cant.  vi.  8;  Ezek.  xiii.  20; 
Ruth  i.  8 ;  Ges.  §32,  rem.  7.     Two  x\ISS.  read  r\^'^. 

11.  np  for  !^7,  as  Exod.  ix.  18;  Lev.  xiii.  4;  Ewald  §  247,  d. 
Comp.  Ges.  §  58,  rem.  i. 

p-liTi..  Perf  hophal  from  i-l-.  The  clause  is  to  be  regarded  as 
hypothetical  or  conditional.     Ewald  §  357  ;  Ges.  §  155,  4,  (I. 

nn'^SHj  3rd  pers.  fem.  sing,  perf  from  HIJ,  a  strong  Chaldaism,  see 
Ewald  §  131,  d;  Bottcher  §  907,  4,  8.  Comp.  nso,  Ezek.  xli.  9.  Note 
the  double  forms  of  hiphil  and  hophal  in  this  verb.  Ewald  remarks 
that  we  might  read  '^n''^L!l,  but  he  observes  that  it  is  not  necessary 
{Proph.  d.  A.  B.  vol.  iii.  p.  204).  See  Kalisch  §  Ixvii.  3,  r,  and  also 
on  the  form,  Ewald  §  115,  d  \  Ges.  §  72,  rem.  9. 

nnJDO  With  shortening  of  the  0  into  ti.  See  Ges.  §  27,  rem.  i  ; 
Bottcher  §  491,  -q. 


Ch.  vi.  1-8.]      CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  557 

CHAPTER  VI. 

I,  ni3D"i^.  In  this  form  instead  of  0133"!^  we  have  an  instance, 
as  Kohler  notes,  of  the  change  of  the  a  sound  into  the  obscurer 
e  sound  before  the  heavy  termination  of  the  plural.  So  Joel  ii.  5  ; 
Mic.  V.  9.  Comp.  for  such  a  change  the  instances  given  by  Ewald 
§  212,  d,  y,  near  end. 

3.  'X  Dm3  'D.  LXX.  tTTTToi  TTOLKiXoL  xpapoi  Symm.  and  Theod. 
have  for  the  third  adjective  TrcXiSvot,  livid,  Aquila  for  the  second 
Kaprepoi.  The  Syr.  omits  the  second  adjective.  Targ.  have 
r5'?Pi?  rr'''V?  'D,  horses  spotted  aiid  ash-coloured ;  in  verse  6  it  also 
renders  Dmn  by  T^^^'^,  and  in  verse  7  it  renders  CVOXn  by  rJ0t2p. 
The  LXX.  translate  Ci'^X  in  verse  7  by  01  i/'apot.  Aq.  iruppoi. 
Symm.  crwecrcfuyixevoi.     Theod.  l(T)(ypoL 

5.  Compare  Jer.  xlix.  36, and  Rev.  vii.  i.  The  Targ. has,  "these 
are  the  four  kingdoms  which  are  the  four  winds  of  the  heavens." 
R.  Salomo  ben  Yizhak  takes  the  same  view,  explaining  the  four 
chariots  of  the  four  empires  of  Daniel,  and  the  four  winds,  as  "  the 
princes  of  the  four  kingdoms  or  monarchies  which  are  ruling  the 
four  quarters  of  the  world." 

6.  Ewald's  proposed  change  of  -li^^'J  perf  in  the  two  instances 
in  which  it  occurs  in  this  verse  into  •I^V.I  imperfect,  is  unneces- 
sary. The  chariots  were  seen  by  the  prophet  rushing  at  full  speed; 
hence  the  change  from  the  participle  used  to  describe  the  first 
chariot  to  the  perfects  employed  in  speaking  of  the  others,  which 
had  passed  by  as  the  interpreting  angel  was  speaking. 

7.  Ewald  and  others  would  read  in  this  place  "  the  red,"  instead 
of  "  the  strong."  This  is  supported  by  the  Syr.,  which  omits  CVlDNn 
in  verse  3,  and  reads  here  "  the  red  horses,"  using  the  same  words 
which  it  employs  for  the  horses  of  the  first  chariot  in  verse  2. 
But  this  appears  to  be  a  conjectural  emendation.  Others  consider 
|'bX=f-1»n  (Isa.  Ixiii.  i),  after  the  LXX.  and  Syr.  See  p.  128. 
ICi^pSM,  LXX.  Kol  iTre(3X.e7rov  rov  -TropevccrOaL,  Other  copies  Kal  i^yrovv, 
Kttt  eTre^AcTTOV  tot;  tt. 

8.  ^riN  pi;T"'1,  i.e.^  the  interpreting  angel.  pH  with  the  ace.  of 
the  person  called  to,  as  in  Jud.  xii.  2  ;  Neh.  ix.  28.  A.V.  translates 
"  then  cried  he  upon  me."  The  Targ.  renders  the  verse,  "  see  those 
who  are  going  forth  to  the  north  country,  say  to  them,  do  my  will 
(my  pleasure,  "TiJ^I)  in  the  north  country." 


558  ZECHAKIA?!   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.        [Ch.vi.  8-14. 

10.  nip?  inf.  abs.  for  imp.  See  Ges.  §  131,  4,  b\  Kalisch§97,  4. 
The  object  to  the  verb  is  expressed  in  the  verse  following.  It  is 
understood  here.  '5^  J?^?-"i.  The  perf.  with  vav  conv.  is  used  here 
imperatively  after  nip?.  The  LXX.,  explaining  the  names  in  some 
fashion  as  symbolical,  render  the  verse  :  Aa^e  rh.  Ik  t^s  oXyjxakin- 
(Ttas  Trapa  twv  ap^ovTwv,  Kai  irapa  twv  ■^p'qcnjxixiv  avT7]<;,  kul  irapa  tcuv  cttc- 
yvojKOTwv  auTT/v.  Other  copies,  according  to  Field's  Hexapla,  give 
the  nouns  as  proper  names,  and  so  Aquila.  Later  commentators,  as 
Hengstenberg,  von  Hofmann,  and  Baumgarten,  maintain  that  the 
variations  in  the  names,  which  probably  arose  from  errors  of  copyists, 
are  of  significance.  But  see  note  on  p.  156.  Note  the  perf.  with 
vav  conv.  after  the  inf.  absol.  used  imperatively,  just  as  after  an  im- 
perative  (Driver  §  112,  f),  r)X31,  as  the  sense  is  clear;  the  con- 
struction  is  continued  by  the  simple  perf.  with  vav  nxni,  used  in 
a  future  signification.  Bottcher,  §  974  B.,  seems  to  regard  the 
second  also  as  the  vav  conv.  In  verse  11  all  the  verbs  seem  to 
be  in  the  perf.  with  vav  conv.  for  no  change  can  be  made  in  the 
tone  in  the  perf.  kal.  of  verbs  n"7.  The  LXX.  and  Syr.  read  the 
singular  instead  of  the  plural  "l^53  at  the  end  of  the  verse. 

11.  On  the  crown  or  crowns  see  p.  147.  The  LXX.  and 
Vulg.  express  the  plural.  The  Targ.  has  the  singular,  "«  large 
crown." 

12.  The  Targ.  renders,  "  beliold  the  man,  Messiah  will  be  his 
name."  LXX.  dmroXiy,  as  in  chap.  iii.  i.  Syr.  and  Vulg.  as  there. 
See  note  on  that  passage.  On  the  phrase  vnnriDlj  see  p.  149  and 
note.  Targ.,  "  who  is  to  be  revealed  and  magnified."  The  Syr.  omits 
the  words  at  the  end  of  the  verse,  viz.  nin''  ?dm  nx  n32l. 

13.  5<ini.  See  remarks  on  p.  150,  and  note  on  verse  15.  The 
LXX.  omit  '*  'n-ns  mn""  Sini.  Compare  the  omission  of  the  Syr. 
in  verse  12.  The  Targ.,  according  to  the  Lond.  Polyglott,  has 
31  ins,  high  priest,  but  de  Lagarde  reads  t^'^Dt:'D  priD,  a  ministering 

priest.  ^^  Between  them  both.'"  See  p.  153.  "  ZTt'  shall  be  a  priest 
upon  his  thro?ie,  etc."  The  LXX.  have  koX  eorat  U/jo^s  Ik  8e$Lwv 
airov,  Kai  /SovXt]  up-qvtKrj  torrai  dvo,  fieaov  afi^oreptuv. 

14.  Syr.  reads  here  Heldai  (see  note  i,  p.  156).  The  Syr.  omits 
in,  and  translates,  "  and  for  Josiah,  the  son  of  Zephaniah,"  as  in 
verse  10.     The  Targ  regards  in  as  a  proper  name. 

Note  the  plural  ni"iDL'ni  with  a  singular  verb,  as  the  plural  has  a 
singular  meaning,  as  in  Job.  xxxi.  36.     Comp.  Ges.  §   146,  2,  with 


Ch.vi.i4-vii.2.]    CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  559 

§  108,  2.  See  also  Ewald  §  317,  a.  The  Targ.  translates,  "and 
praise  shall  be  to  Helem,  etc." 

The  LXX.,  explaining  the  names  as4in  verse  10,  translate :  6  Se  ari- 
<jiavo<;  (.(TTat  Tois  vTrofxevovaL  Kai  rots  ^p7](TLjjiOL<;  avr7J<;  Kat  rots  cTrcyvo)- 
CTKoatv  avT'i]v  koI  ets  ^aptra  vlov  ^ocfiOVLOv,  Kat  €is  ipaXjxov  iv  oI'ko) 
Kvpiov.  But  Aq.  and  Theod.  :  tw  'EAe/^  koi  t<2  TwySta  Kat  tw  'iSe'a. 
Symm.  tw  opwvTL  ivvirvta  (reading  ^2'^f')  ^at  t<3  T.  Kat  tw  'I.  Jerome 
notes  :  "  Hebrsei  Ananiam,  Azariam,  et  Misael^  de  captivitati  veni- 
entes  aurum  et  argentum  in  munera  templi,  et  coronas  pontificis  ac 
ducis  attulisse  conimemorant ;  et  quem  supra  non  dixerat  Hen,  id 
est^  gratiani,  Danielem  venisse  cum  munere,  et  idcirco  Helem  posi- 
tum  pro  Holdai,  iit  ex  interpretatione  nominis  quod  dicitur  so7H)iiutn, 
ostendatur  in  captivitate  positum  Danielem,  et  tres  pueros,  regalis 
somnii  mysteria  cognovisse." 

15.  ?  n33  maybe  either  rendered  here,  "build  in  the  temple  of 
Jahaveh,  or  "build  on"  i.e.,  "be  employed  about  the  building  of 
the  Temple."  See  Neh.  iv.  4,  11.  The  temple  spoken  of  here  and 
in  verse  13  can  only  be  the  spiritual  temple.  Comp.  Ps.  Ixxxvii.  5. 
See  Tholuck,  Die  Proph.  ti.  ihre  Weiss,  pp.  1S7,  ff. 


CHAPTER   VII. 

1.  On  the  peculiarities  of  diction  see  p.  162  and  pp.  166-7. 

2.  V\y^'^^.  See  note  on  p.  162.  Bottcher  regards  the  impf.  with 
vav  conv.  as  being  used  here  as  a  pluperf  (§  979,  4). 

7N  T\''1,  The  LXX.  render :  Kat  efaTrcWetXev  €ts  Bat^ryX  ^apaaap 
Kol  'ApfSeaeep  6  jSacrtXeus  Kat  ol  avSpes  avTov  i^LXatracrOaL  tov  Kvptov. 
It  is  hard  to  conjecture  how  D311  could  have  been  transformed 
into  Kat  'ApPeaUp,  and  the  translation  as  a  whole  is  unintelligible. 
The  Syr.  translates,  "  and  he  sent  to  Bethel  Sharozor  and  Rabmag, 
and  the  king  sent  and  his  great  men  to  pray,  etc."  It  is  difficult  to 
comprehend  whom  the  translator  meant  by  "  the  king."  The  word 
of  course  is  part  of  the  compound  proper  name.  The  Arab,  vers.,  con- 
trary to  its  usual  custom,  agrees  with  the  Syr.  and  not  with  the  LXX. 
(see  note  3  on  p.  166).  The  LXX.,  Syr.,  and  Targ.,  regard  ?^  n''2  as 
the  accusative  of  place  (see  Ewald  §300,  I?  ;  Gesen.  §  118,  i).  There 
is  no  need  to  suppose  that  they  read  .^^^  T\''22^  which  is  the  reading 
of  two  MSS.     On  the  phrase  ^0  stroke  the  face,  see  note  2,  p.  166. 


S60  ZECIIARIAH   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  vii.3-7. 

3,  IDS?.  The  word,  thougli  used  at  the  commencement  of 
the  verse,  is  repeated  in  the  middle  on  account  of  the  number  of 
words  intervening.  Compare  the  double  occurrence  of  "I'^sni  in 
2  Sam.  xiv.  4.     So  also  verses  4  and  5. 

It^n,  inf.  absol.  niphal.  The  Targ.  explains  this  of  abstaining 
from  pleasures.  This  form  of  the  inf.  absol.  occurs  also  in  Num. 
XV.  31  (ni3n),  I  Sam.  xxvii.  i  (Opsn),  and  in  other,  passages.  See 
Bottcher  §  988,  2,  ^  \  Ges.  §  51,  2,  rem.  i.  On  the  construction  see 
Ewald  §  280,  (z;  Ges.  §  131,  4,  a;  Kalisch  §  97,  5.  The  niphal 
being  in  this  verb  always  reflexive,  there  is  nothing  peculiar  in 
the  verb  having  no  object,  as  Pressel  seems  to  think.  Aq.  to 
d^wpicr/AtVov.  The  LXX.,  not  understanding  the  construction,  took 
ITJn  as  a  noun  with  the  article,  and  reading,  perhaps,  '"ID  X3  in  place 
of  nDDXHj  render  absurdly  d<JiK'f]\.vQf.v  StSe  iv  roi  fjirjvl  tw  Tri/jLirTw  TO 
ayiaa-ixa.  Some  copies,  Field  notes,  add  rj  v7](TT€vcroi,  which  seems  like 
a  correction.  The  Targ.  renders  ^p.^Dp-l,  "  and  to  the  scribes "  in 
place  of  "  to  the  prophets." 

Shall  I  zocep  7    See  note  i,  p.  169. 

D''Jti>  nOD  nt.  For  how  viany  years  !  The  idea  of  "  how  niany 
years  .?"  cannot  be  otherwise  expressed.  HD  (see  Ewald  §  330,  a) 
is  used  as  an  exclamation  of  wonder.  So  Gesenius  in  Thes.  ^^  jam, 
0  qitot  S7int  aiiui!  and  in  the  last  edition  of  his  Worterhuch,  "  o  wie 
viele  Jahre  schon ! "  Comp.  Ps.  cxix.  84,  and  the  opposite  in 
Isa.  ii.  22.      The  LXX.  render  here  ■^St;  iKam  h-r). 

5.  '•Jno^'j  scrip,  def.,  comp.  ''3n"'?l'nj  Num.  xx.  5.  See  on  the  con- 
struction, p.  171.  On  the  repetition  of  the  pronoun  after  the  suffix, 
compare  Gen.  xxvii.  34;  Num.  xiv,  32;  Ps.  ix.  7  ;  Prov.  xxii.  19.  See 
Ges. §  121,  3  ;  Ewald§3Ti,  a.  In  confirmation  of  Ewald's  view,  as 
pointed  out  in  p.  171,  comp.  Job  xxxi.  18,  xl.  22  ;  Isa.  xliv.  2i,lxv.  5. 
TiSDI,  inf.  abs.  See  note  on  "tTJn,  verse  3.  nn.  LXX.  ^ai 
180U. 

6.  D''72Xn.  On  the  article,  see  Ewald  §  206,  a  ;  Ges.  §  109,  rem. 
in  the  beginning. 

7.  D^imrrns,  See  note  i,  p.  172.  The  expression  T3,  "by 
the  hand  of,"  had  become  so  common  in  the  signification  of  "  by 
means  of,''  that  it  is  here  used  though  preceded  by  ^'p,,  to  call. 
Comp.  Hag.  i.  i.  ri3C'\  Comp.  chap.  i.  ir.  See  note  on  p.  173. 
^t^•^  is  used  in  the  masc.  singular  as  a  predicate  to  the  nouns  which 
precede,  though  the  noun  immediately  preceding  is  feminine.      This 


Ch.vii.7-viii.3-]   CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  561 

is  a  rare  construction.     See  E.vald  §  339,  c ;  Ges,  §  148,  2.     Comp. 
Prov.  xxvii.  9. 

8.  See  note  i  on  p.  174. 

9.  See  p.  174. 

10.  1J.  If  the  copula  be  omitted  before  "i3,  the  "  widow  and 
orphan"  are  considered  as  forming  one  class,  and  the  "stranger  and 
the  poor  "  as  forming  another  class  of  persons,  sins  against  whom  are 
peculiarly  hateful  (Kohler).  The  sense  is  slightly  different  if  the 
reading  "1JI  be  adopted,  which  is  found  in  many  MSS.  and  editions, 
and  is  expressed  by  the  LXX.,  Targ.  and  Vulg.    The  Syr.  paraphrases 

he  words,  "and  to  the  poor  and  him  that  turns  himself  to  me." 
'N  ti'^K  ny-i.     See  note  i,  p.  175. 

11.  In  the  translation  of  the  Vulg.,  "  et  averterunt  scapulam 
recedentem,"  "  averterunt "  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  mistake  of  the 
copyists  for  "verterunt,"  which  latter  rendering  Jerome  gives  in  his 
Commentary.     See  Schegg. 

12.  The  LXX.  translate,  quoad  sensum,  T'Oti'^  by  aTret^^,  referring 
to  KapSiav. 

13.  The  Syr.  has  "because  I  called,"  instead  of  "as  he  called." 

14.  D"iJ|DX1..  This  is  the  ist  pers.  sing.  imp.  piel,  from  "i^D.  The 
K,  according  to  Aramaic  usage,  has  the  long  vowel  instead  of  the 
usual  half-vowel,  ~  or~.  Comp.  Ges.  §  23,  3,  rem.  2,  and  see 
Ges.  §  52,  2,  rem.  2;  Ewald  §  235,  d ;  Bottcher  §  427,  3,  g,  §  1056, 
vol.  ii.  p.  370  j  Kalisch  §  xvi.  4,  d.  On  the  chateph  pathach  under 
the  second  radical,  see  Ges,  §  10,  2,  rem. ;  Kalisch  §  lix.  9.  David 
Kimchi  mentions  that  his  father,  Joseph  Kimchi,  considered  the  form 
to  be  kal,  instead  of  ^l^P^ ;  while  Fiirst  in  his  Concord,  regards  it  as 
a  niphal ;  but  the  verb  is  intransitive  both  in  kal  and  niphal  (see 
Kalisch,  Gr:,  vol  ii.  p.  203,  footnote.)  Fiirst  has,  however,  correctly 
regarded  it  as  a  piel  in  his  Worterbiich.  mJOn  pX  is  a  reminis- 
cence from  Jer.  iii.  19,  which  fact  explains  the  omission  of  the  article. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

2,  'J  nX3p  'Jp.     Comp.  note  on  chap.  i.  2. 

3.  On  the  rendering  of  the  perfects,  see  p.  178.  Instead  oi 
rendering  them  both  as  presents,  "/  return  to  Zion,  and  I  dwell, 
etc.,"  it  is  perhaps  better,  inasmuch  as  the  second  perfect  is  the  perf. 

O  O 


562  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.        [Ch.  viii.  3-9. 

with  vav  conv.  (note  the  tone),  to  regard  the  first  as  a  present- 
perfect  and  the  second  as  a  present.  The  perf.  with  vav  conv. 
denotes  here  the  definite  act  which  is  considered  as  the  result  of  the 
action  described  by  the  perfect  preceding  (see  Driver  §  115,  Obs.). 
The  first  perfect  need  not  be  regarded  as  a  prophetic  perfect.  The 
Syr.  renders  "'H^CJ'  by  "  I  am  comforted  in  ZionP 

noxn  i^y  The  article  probably  qualifies  i^,  and  not  the 
preceding  noun.  The  article  is  used  before  the  abstract  noun  (see 
Gesen.  §  109,  3,  rem.  i,  c;  Kalisch  §  83,  11).  The  Syr.  translates 
it  by  ''  the  holy  city." 

4.  C^X.  ^^  Each  otie"  (comp.  Ezek.  viii.  11;  Gesen.  §  124,  2, 
rem.  i  ;  Kalisch  §  82,  9),  "  On  account  of  the  imiltitiide  of  his  days,^' 
i.e.,  his  old  age  (Job  xxxii.  7).  The  Targ.  wrongly,  "  and  the  good 
works  of  each  shall  protect  him  from  the  multitude  of  days,"  or 
"from  the  troubles  of  old  age." 

5.  The  verb  in  this  verse  does  not  agree  with  its  nom.  in  gender, 
as  num,  though  feminine,  is  a  feminine  used  in  a  neuter  signification. 
Comp.  Ezek.  xxiv.  10;  Ps.  x.  8,  xi,  4,  etc.  See  Ges.  §  146^  3;  Jer. 
XXX,  19,  Bottcher  §  936,  a.  The  Targ.,  after  the  analogy  of  2  Sam. 
vi.  5,  has  rendered  D^nb'D  by  rri?i^'P,  ''praising"  scil.  God.  But 
this  meaning  does  not  suit  so  well  here. 

6.  X73*  ""S.  On  the  ''3  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence,  see 
Ewald  §  362,  a.  03  for  Qin^  comp.  i  Sam.  xxii.  7  ;  see  Ges. 
§  153,  I.  The  Targ.  misrepresents  the  meaning  of  ^^2^  in  this  pas- 
sage, "as  my  fear  was  had  in  honour  (^J^ipn'^.  "li^^n  ns)  in  the  eyes  of 
the  residue  of  this  people  in  these  days,  so  (|-"i"'i?^?.  ^'P'Ji^.  ^1^)  before 
me  they  will  be  honoured." 

7.  Comp,  on  the  subject  matter  Isa.  xliii.  5. 

8.  "I  will  bring  them  back  and  they  shall  dwell  "  (comp.  Isa. 
Ivi.  7).     The  LXX,  render  1J3w"i  by  kox  KaraaKrjvwo-w. 

"  /7t'///  be  to  them  a  God."    Comp.  Jer.  xxx.  22  ;  Ezek.  xxxvii.  27. 

9.  D''S;Dt^'^.  Note  the  vocative  with  article.  See  Ges.  §  109,  3, 
rem,  2. 

"•tJ'X.  See  note  p.  185.  The  prophets  here  referred  to  were  of 
course  difi"erent  from  "  the  former  prophets,"  i.e.,  those  before  the 
days  of  exile,  mentioned  in  chap.  vii.  7,  12,  chap.  i.  4.  Hitzig,  indeed, 
regards  the  word  73^"in  (the  temple)  in  the  close  of  the  verse  as  a 
gloss.  Though  the  plural  is  used  (Q''S''33n^  tlic  prophets),  it  is  not 
necessary  to  suppose  that  other  prophets  besides  Haggai  and  Zech- 


Ch.  viii.9-i4]   CRITICAL   AND   GRAAIMATICAL   COMM.  563 

ariah  are  referred  to.  The  Vulg.  omits  1t^'X  in  its  translation, 
"  qui  auditis  in  his  diebus  sermones  istos  per  os  prophetarum  in  die 
qua  fundata  est  domus  Domini,  etc."  Hitzig  observes  that  the  LXX. 
appear  from  their  translation,  dcfi  ov  (^KoSofxrjrai,  to  have  read  niJSnp 

10.  The  suffix  in  i^^V^,  which  expresses  the  predicate,  agrees 
with  the  genitive  nQnarij  instead  of  the  governing  noun.  See 
Ewald  §  317  c,  who  classes  this  case  with  the  examples  in  i  Kings 
xvii.  16  (compare  verse  14)  ;  Lev.  xiii.  9.  Hitzig  denies  the  simi- 
larity of  the  cases,  as  the  predicate  cannot  here  be  properly  affirmed 
of  the  genitive.  He  maintains  that  "•^EJ'  is  properly  speaking  of  no 
gender,  and  that  the  masc.  '"i^i^^  was  used  on  account  of  Dl^n  im- 
mediately preceding. 

^^'n.  Not  ''f/ie  affliction"  as  the  A.  V.,  after  LXX.,  Targ.,  and 
Vulg.,  but  rather  with  the  Syr.,  "  the  oppressor." 

n?i?'i:?i.  The  1  is  not  here  the  simple  copula,  but  the  vav  conv.  with 
the  omission  of  the  usual  lengthening  of  the  vowel  as  compensation 
for  the  daghesh  which  cannot  occur  in  the  5^.  Compare  ^l^^^l,  Jud. 
vi.  9,  also  XX.  6,  2  Sam.  i.  10,  etc.  See  Ewald  §  232  h;  Kahsch 
§  xlix.  2.  Hitzig  observes  that  though  it  is  better  to  regard  the  1  as 
conversive,  yet  the  use  of  the  imperf  with  the  ordinary  copula  might 
be  defended  as  referring  to  a  repeated  action.  The  meaning  is 
scarcely,  with  Ewald  and  Kohler,  "  I  gave  each  man  into  the  hand  of 
the  other,"  which  would  require  ^1?,  but  perhaps  rather,  with  Keil, 
"  I  drove  each  against  the  other,"  or,  "//(?/  loose,  etc."  comp.  Prov. 
vi.  14,  19,  xvi.  28. 

11.  '"in  D''D''3.     On  the  construction  see  Ges.  §  118,  3,  rem. 

12.  On  "  the  seed  of  peace"  see  note  on  p.  186.  Dr.  Pusey  trans- 
lates the  passage,  "  for  the  seed  shall  be  peace."  He  remarks  that 
"  '  seed '  has  no  relation  to  the  *  vine.'  "  But,  in  addition  to  what  is 
mentioned  in  the  note  referred  to,  Jer.  ii.  2 1  may  be  cited,  where  the 
\>1V  is  indirectly  called  ^1,  "  a  seed." 

14.  'niona.  Our  A. v.,  following  the  LXX.  koI  ov  fjiiTevorjcra,  has 
"  and  I  repented  not."  The  verb  has  this  signification  in  niphal  and 
hithpael,  and  must  likewise  be  considered  as  having  the  same  in  the 
piel,  although  this  meaning  is  not  given  by  Gesenius  or  Fiirst.  Kohler 
and  Keil  regard  it  as  reflexive.  Perhaps  it  is  better  to  translate 
with  Ewald,  "I  repented  it  not."    The  tippecha  is  perhaps  used  with 

L  .  ^  5- 

^?  for  emphasis.     The  Syr.  has,  according  to  Lond.  Polygl.,  Aa2)oi{o 
'^  and  I  ttinicd  back"  but  Lee's  edition  prefixes  the  negative  particle. 


564  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.   [Ch.  viiL  15-23. 

15.  TlOOT  ^na:^',  "/  have  again  purposed"  (see  Ges.  §  142,  ^b; 
Kalisch  §  103,  2  ;  Ewald  §  285  b).  The  full  form  "•nonT,  instead  of 
^nST  (Jer.  iv.  28),  may  be  an  indication  of  a  late  date.  See  Bott- 
cher  §  II18,  I  «.  The  LXX.  have  ovtws  TrapaTcVay/Aat  koX  Siavci'OT;- 
fiai,  perhaps  reading  ^ni'i^'n. 

16.  See  note  i,  p.  189. 

17.  See  note  2,  p.  189. 

19.  The  LXX.  insert  after  D''3lt3  kol  eicfipavO-qa-ea-Oe.  See  also  on 
the  verse  the  remarks  on  p.  191. 

20.  '1J1  "I'J'S  ni;.  See  note  i  on  p.  192.  Rosenmiiller  cites 
Ps.  X.  6  as  an  instance  of  a  similar  omission  of  the  substantive  verb, 
but  such  cannot  be  the  case  in  that  special  place  (see  Delitzsch). 
The  accentuation  is  here  in  favour  of  the  translation,  "it  will  yet 
(be)  that  people  will  come,"  for  "ly  is  separated  from  "li^'f^  by  the  dis- 
junctive yethibh. 

21.  nnX  ^2L^''l''.      LXX.  KarotKowi/Tcs  TreVre  TroXet?. 
"Il7n  n37J.     See  on  the  construction  note  2,  p.  192. 
n37X,     See  Ges.  §  128,  i  ;  Kalisch  §  94, 11, 

22.  D^oivr  DMJ1.  LXX.  WvT]  TToXAa.  They  render  DV^T  also  by 
iToXv  in  Gen.  xviii.  18. 

23.  See  note  on  p.  193.  It^X,  T/iat.  The  Vulg.  regarded  it  as 
relative,  hence  its  rendering,  "  in  diebus  illis  in  quibus  apprehen- 
dent,  etc." 

In  the  Yalkut  Shinieoni,  the  statements  of  which  concerning  the 
sufferings  of  the  Messiah  are  given  by  Wiinsche  in  his  Leiden  des 
Messias,  the  following  reference  is  made  to  this  passage:  "And  all 
of  them  (the  nations)  will  come  and  fall  down  upon  their  faces  before 
Messiah  and  before  Israel,  and  will  say,  We  will  be  to  thee  and  to 
Israel  for  servants  ;  and  every  one  of  Israel  will  have  two  thousand 
and  eight  hundred  servants,  as  it  is  written,  '  In  those  days  (it  will 
happen)  that  ten  men  shall  take  hold,  out  of  all  the  languages 
of  the  nations,  even  take  hold  of  the  skirts  of  a  man  (who  is) 
a  Jew,  saying,  Let  us  go  with  you,  for  we  have  heard  that  God  is 
with  you'"  (pp.  82,  83).  Wiinsche,  in  his  note,  explains  the  re- 
ference to  the  number  of  the  servants,  from  R.  Bechai's  explanation 
of  the  Thora,  fol.  168,  col.  2,  in  the  parashah  V  f^^"^'  (Num.  xiii.  2, 
ff.),  as  alluding  to  the  70  nations,  ten  men  from  each  of  whom 
would  make  700  at  each  corner,  which  multiplied  by  the  four  corners 
makes  2,800  ! 


Ch.  ix.  I.]        CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  56; 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Stahelin  in  his  Einleitimg  has  well  remarked  from  his  standpoint, 
that  the  prophecy  concerning  the  Gentiles  contained  in  verses  1-7 
of  this  chapter  is  one  well  suited  to  the  Persian  period.  For  the 
calamities  here  announced  are  such  as  were  to  fall  on  the  territory 
along  the  coast,  which  was  the  usual  road  taken  by  the  Persian  armies 
in  their  march  southwards.  Moab  and  Ammon,  or  even  Edom, 
against  which  Jeremiah  directed  certain  of  his  prophecies^  might  well 
be  passed  over  by  the  prophet,  inasmuch  as  these  neighbours,  being 
Persian  subjects,  could  not  do  anything  against  a  colony  which,  in 
the  time  of  Darius,  was  specially  protected  by  Persia.  Though  it  is 
well  to  note  Stahelin's  remarks  on  this  point,  we  prefer  the  view  ad- 
vocated by  Kohler,  and  adopted  by  us  in  our  remarks  on  pp.  201  ff. 
I.  NCJ'JD.  See  remarks  on  p.  202.  The  LXX.  have  X-yix/xa,  an 
oracle  (see  Schleusner),  which  the  Itala  always  renders  by  assicmptio. 
So  here,  chap.  xii.  i,  and  also  in  Jer.  xxiii.  t^t^,  ff.  ;  Nah.  i.  i ;  Hab.  i.  i; 
Mai.  i.  I  ;  Lam.  ii.  14.  Aquila,  ap/x.a,  a  zveight,  a  burden.  The  LXX. 
elsewhere  render  it  opa<Ti<s  (Isa.  xiii.  i)  ;  opafxa  (Isa.  xxi.  i),  and 
prjljia  (Isa.  xiv.  28).  According  to  Jer.  xxiii.  33-36,  the  prophets 
seem  to  have  termed  their  prophecies  "oracles"  or  " utterances," 
but,  as  the  word  was  capable  of  being  understood  in  another  sense, 
the  scoffers  mockingly  pretended  to  understand  the  word  in  the  other 
signification,  wherefore  the  Lord  threatens  in  that  passage  to  punish 
them  for  their  mockery.  The  Syr.  renders  the  word  variously;  in 
this  place  it  omits  '0  altogether,  and  in  chap.  xii.  i  it  translates  it  by 
"  vision." 

On  Hadrach,  see  p.  202,  ff.  The  catalogue  of  Syrian  cities  referred 
to  on  p.  206  is  also  given  by  Schrader  in  his  lately  published  work 
on  Keilinschriften  wid  GeschicJitsforschiing.  Magida,  or  Ma-gi-du-u, 
as  Schrader  writes  it,  seems  not  to  be  the  same  as  Megiddo  in 
the  territory  of  Issachar.  See  Schrader's  remarks,  pp;  1 19-123. 
There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  about  the  identification  of  Hadrach  with 
the  city  of  the  name  of  Hatarika  (as  given  on  p.  205),  after  which  a 
considerable  territory  was  also  called.  See  Schrader,  Keilinschriften 
u.  Gesch.  pp.  95,  ff. 

Prof.  Dr.  Delitzsch  has  called  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
mosque   referred   to  by  Neubauer,  as  quoted  in  note  2,  p.  206,  is 


566  ZECHARIAIi   AND    HIS    PROPHECIES.         [Ch.  ix.  1-4. 

writteninArab.  J^2^  n    (Arab.-Heb.' i<T!>.'n^X  nJDD),     the     green 
mosf/ue,and  hence  it  has  no  connexion  with  Ttn. 

'1J1  pki'Dni.  The  Targum  paraphrases,  "  and  Damascus  shall  be 
turned  to  be  of  the  land  of  the  house  of  the  Shekinah,"  and  so  the 
clause  respecting  Hamath  in  verse  2.  inm^D.  The  LXX.  render 
here  Ova-ta  avrov.  This  rendering  may  possibly  be  an  interpreta- 
tion like  that  of  the  Targum.  Compare,  however,  their  rendering  of 
the  same  word  in  2  Sam.  xiv.  17,  where  they  must  have  read  ^^^p. 
The  Syr.  has  similarly  onojoo.  Aquil.  has  kol  iv  Aa/xaa-Kc^  di'dTrauo-t? 
avToG  (see  pp.  206,  207). 

"  J^or  to  Jahaveh  will  be  the  eye  of  man,  etc.''  LXX.  correctly, 
quoad  sensutn,  Ston  KvpLo^  icjiopa  avOpiairov?  K.r.X.  Syr.  | . •  \-i  \ »  '"^^io 
t*o  }ai«io  ^.\  ■  "  because  men  and  all  the  tribes  of  Israel 
are  manifest  to  the  Lord."  Similarly  the  Targ.,  *'  because  before  the 
Lord  the  works  of  the  children  of  men  are  revealed,  and  he  is 
pleased  Cl^l^i^*)  with  all  the  tribes  of  Israel."  Drake  translates,  "  for 
the  eye  of  J.  is  over  man,  and  over  all  the  tribes  of  Israel."  He 
suggests,  after  J.  D.  Michaelis,  to  read  Q"iS  instead  of  Dl^^,  in  which 
case  the  phrase  DiJ^  V^  would  mean,  "  the  whole  face  of  Syria" 
(comp.  Exod.  X.  15,  Num.  xxii.  5,  11).  One  MS.  is  said  to  have 
this  reading.  But  the  change  is  unnecessary,  as  are  other  changes 
which  have  been  proposed.  Pressel  translates,  "  the  circle  of  men," 
I.e.,  "  all  men  round  about."  He  appeals  to  the  texts  already 
quoted,  which  do  not,  however,  justify  that  translation.  See  on  the 
passage,  p.  207.  In  support  of  his  view  that  the  genitive  is  to  be 
viewed  as  objective,  Hitzig  refers  to  verse  12,  Isa.  xxv.  4,  Jer,  xxvi. 
II,  though  he  confesses  the  construction  is  hard. 

2.  131  nOn"D31.  LXX.  KOL  iv  'H/xaO  iv  rots  optots  avr)j<;,  Tvpo<: 
KOI  2.  They  seem  simply  to  have  translated  (/uoad  scnsum.  Thus 
they  render  also  the  singular  at  the  end  of  the  verse  by  the  plural, 
rightly  considering  that  the  clause  refers  both  to  Tyre  and  Sidon  (see 
p.  210).  The  Targ.  renders  the  last  clause  of  the  verse,  "  for  it  is 
very  strong."  Aquila  has,  Kacye  'H/xa^  opto^erv/tTerut  Iv  avnj.  Symm., 
KUL  iv   H/xaO  Tj)   o/JLopox'a-r],  kol  Tvpio  kol  ^lSoivl. 

4.  For  ''3"IX  many  MSS.  read  nin"",  which  Henderson  would  adopt. 
'13C^'11\  Owing  to  the  diversity  of  meanings  of  the  verb  t^n*  Fiirst  has 
recognised  a  double  stem.  But  this  is  unnecessary.  The  verb  seems 
properly  to  take  into  possession,  sometimes  by  violence,  and  hence  to 


Ch.  ix.  4>S-]    CRITICAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  567 

drive  away,  as  well  as  to  possess,  but  also  to  impoverish.  Hence 
Ewald's  translation,  "the  Lord  will  impoverish  her."  ?''n  or  ^D, 
means  the  ditch  of  the  fortress,  or  its  bastion,  as  Is.  xxvi.  i  ;  Lam. 
ii.  8.  If  the  word  be  taken  from  ?1D  it  might  mean  riches,  as  Ewald 
(comp.  Ezek.  xxviii.  4),  and  the  form  before  suffixes  is  identical. 
But  it  is  better,  for  the  reasons  given  in  note  2,  p.  211,  to  take  it  in 
the  sense  of  a  fortification,  for  though  originally  it  meant  the  ditch 
of  the  fortress,  it  seems  to  be  used  generally  for  the  bastiojis.  LXX. 
ovva/xLV  avT'^s. 

5.  On  verses  5-8,  comp.  the  very  similar  passage  in  Zeph.  ii.  4-7. 
^IB.  So  Baer  on  authority  of  MSS.  for  i^"})^,  impf.  apoc.  or  jussive 
of  nsn.  On  tlie  form  and  the  tone  milra,  see  Ges.  §  75,  rem.  3,  l> ; 
Kalisch  §  Ixvii.  15,  ^3  Ewald  §  62,d.  Bottcher  supposes  that  the 
peculiarity  of  the  accent  is  caused  by  the  word  being  pronounced  in 
a  threatening  tone,  Bottcher  §  497,  9.  The  jussive  has  here  the  force 
of  "  fnust  see."  See  Driver  §  58;  Bottcher  §  961,  A,  7.  Note  the 
paronomasia  between  ^1^  and  ^T^j  so  also  in  Ps.  xl.  4,  Hi.  8 ;  Isa. 
xli.  5.  ''^n^l..  Ewald  regards  this  as  a  jussive  for  ^nni,  the  verb 
''•in  being  one  of  those  which  do  not  readily  change  the  V  into  t, 
Ewald  §  224,  b,  at  end,  but  Bottcher  {JV.  Aehrenlese,  1015)  thinks 
that  it  is  better  to  regard  the  speech  as  passing  over  from  the  jussive 
into  the  prophetic  future,  "  and  it  must  tremble."  Thus  in  the  end 
of  the  verse  we  meet  13^^''.  followed  by  3;^n  ^\,  The  imp.  kal.  of 
this  verb  is  considered  by  Gesenius  to  have  two  forms,  ''■in^  and 
^TIJ.  Fiirst  in  his  Worterb.  regards  ?''n*  as  a  hiphil,  though  with 
the  signification  of  kal.  In  his  Concord,  he  follows  the  opinion  of 
Gesenius.  t:'''?fn  from  t^'tS,   Ewald  §   122,  e ;  Olshausen  §  255, 

i.  p.  566 ;  KaHsch  §  Ixvii.  A,  3,  4.  Gesenius  in  the  Thcs.  takes  it  as 
a  hiphil  of  ^3\      The  meaning  would  be  the  same.  ^^P??  for 

npSD  from  t^BO  (for  t23;ip,  stem  t33J),  expectation,  hope,  pathach 
shortened  into  seghol  like  "j^^-??  for  "'^t?^,  see  Ges.  §  27,  rem.  2,  a ; 
Ewald  §  88,  d,  §  160,  d;  Kalisch  §  xvi.  9,  footnote  c.  Bottcher 
§  498,  17,  imagines  that  it  is  because  the  word  was  pronounced  in 
the  tone  of  lamentation.  The  LXX.  have  I-kX  tw  TrapaTTTw/xaTL  avTrjs, 
as  if  they  read  "^^pn??,  but  perhaps  they  intended  to  give  merely  the 
sense  of  the  passage.       ^DTl  iO,  See  note  on  p.  213. 

Mr.  Chamberlain  maintains  that  this  prophecy  of  Zechariah  was 
not  fulfilled  up  to  the  year  a.d,  1270,  when  the  fortifications  of 
Ashkelon  "  were  at  length  utterly  destroyed  by  Sultan  Bibars."     It 


568  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.         [Ch.ix.  5-7. 

is  true  that  a  Christian  city,  built  on  the  site  of  the  ancient  one 
was  the  seat  of  a  Christian  bishop  in  a.d.  536.  But  though  no 
mention  is  made  of  the  destruction  of  Ashkelon  in  the  days  of  the 
Maccabees,  inasmuch  as  its  citizens  seem  to  have  surrendered  with- 
out resistance  (i  Mace.  x.  86),  and  were  afterwards  friendly  to  the 
Jews  (i  Mace.  xi.  60),  it  does  not  follow  that  it  was  not  destroyed  or 
deserted  in  the  later  troubles  which  fell  upon  the  land.  Benjamin 
of  Tudela  speaks  of  the  new  Ashkelon  as  being  four  parasangs  from 
the  ancient  city,  of  the  destruction  of  which  we  have  no  account. 

6.  "i.tP^.  See  p.  216.  The  word  only  occurs  in  this  passage  and 
in  Deut.  xxiii.  3  (E.V.  verse  2).  It  is  most  probably  derived  from 
"ITO,  unused  in  Hebrew,  but  equivalent  to  ".3^  to  be  cormpt,  dirty, 
signifying  one  of  impure  descent,  or  it  may  be  taken  from  the  same 
root  in  the  sense  of  mingle^  Talm.  IIP,  to  mix  threads,  to  spin.  So 
Fiirst.  Geiger  maintains  that  it  is  equivalent  to  ""t  ^-^P,  ^^  of  a 
foreign  nation,'^  but  instances  of  such  a  compound  are  wanting,  that 
appealed  to  by  Geiger  being  unsatisfactory.  The  LXX.,  in  Deut., 
render  it  Ik  7r6pin]<;,  Vulg.,  de  scorto  natiis,  and  so  the  other  versions. 
LXX.  here  dAAoyeveis;  Aq.,  Symm.,  and  Theod.,  ixay^^p.  Vulg., 
"et  sedebit  separator  in  Azoto."  See  Ges.  T/ies.,  and  Add.  by 
Rodiger.  The  conjectures  of  Redslob  and  of  Maurer  need  not  be 
discussed  here.  The  Targum  has  widely  mistaken  the  sense  of  the 
passage  :  "  and  the  house  of  Israel  shall  dwell  at  Ashdod  where  they 
were  strangers."  R.  Salomo  ben  Yizhak  explains  it,  "  and  a  foreign 
people  shall  dwell  in  Ashdod,  these  are  the  Israelites  who  were 
strangers  in  that  city." 

7.  See  p.  217,  fif,  230.  The  Targ.  renders,  "and  the  strangers," 
(or  "prosc/ytes,"  '^'^''^15  used  in  both  significations)  "who  shall  be 
left  among  them,  even  they  shall  be  joined  to  the  people  of  our 
God."  mn'-a  Piks?.  The  term  fj-I^S*  is  the  peculiar  name  of  the 
princes  of  the  Edomites,  and  is  applied  only  by  Zechariah  to  Jewish 
princes  or  chieftains.  It  is  connected  with  ^(X>,  ^  thousand,  and 
means  the  head  of  a  thousand,  ■yikKxpyy]'^,  not  <^v\6.pyr]%.  The  word 
is  also  used  in  the  signification  of  friend,  which  does  not  suit  here. 
See  Delitzsch,  Genesis,  4te  Ausg.,  on  chap,  xxxvi.  p.  439,  and  Kohler. 
V.  Ortenberg  proposes  unnecessarily  to  change  ^^^  into  ^.^.  And 
Ekron  as  the  Jcbusite.  See  p.  219.  The  Syr.  renders,  "and  Ekron 
shall  be  as  Hebron."  The  Targ.,  "and  Ekron  shall  be  filled  with 
the  house  (family)  of  Israel  as  Jerusalem." 


Ch.  ix.  S,9]        CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMiM.  569 

8,  ■'ir'n?  is  "  oil  behalf  of  my  house "  (comp.  the  prep,  in  Ps. 
cxxi.  i).  i°'^'VP  is  intended  by  the  Masorites  to  be  regarded  as 
equivalent  to  ^^'VP  (which  is  the  reading  of  some  MSS.)  or  ^^V  IP, 
not  "  without  an  army,"  but  "  against  "  or  "  on  account  of  an  army." 
Bottcher  (iV!  ^d7/r(?;//^i-^)  unnecessarily  proposes  to  read  i^^'V^  (i  Sam. 
xiv.  \2)  a  garrison,  considering  the  phrase  to  mean:  "I  encamp 
myself  (with  my  host  of  angels)  in  my  house  as  an  entire  garrison," 
i.e.,  like  a  regular  garrison.  Very  similarly  Blayney  and  Newcome  : 
"  I  will  encamp  about  my  house  (with)  an  army."  The  fem.  nnyp 
is  only  found  in  i  Sam.  xiv.  12,  elsewhere  in  that  chapter  the  mascu- 
line noun  2-^^  is  used.  Wellhausen  would,  in  i  Sam.  xiv.  12,  on  the 
authority  of  the  LXX.  (who  read  in  that  verse,  as  in  all  the  other 
verses  in  that  chapter,  Meo-o-a^),  change  the  feminine  into  the  mascu- 
line form,  which  is  used  throughout  that  narrative.  But  Bdttcher 
(whom  Thenius  in  his  second  edition  follows)  regards  the  fem.  form  as 
there  expressly  chosen  for  grammatical  reasons,  because  the  meaning 
is:  "then  called  the  men  (from  many  points)  of  the  whole  garrison," 
the  meaning  of  whole  being  expressed  by  the  fem.  form.  See  Bottcher's 
N.  Aehrenlese  on  Gen.  xxxviii.  18,  25,  and  hxsLehrb.,  §  642,  (3.  The 
LXX.  have  here  dvaaT-qixa  rov  fLiq  SiaTTopevecrOai ;  Symm.,  KO)Xv(DV 
(TT/aaTctas  TrapdyovTos ;   Vulg.,  '■^  ex' his  qui  viilitajit  mihi ;"  Syr.,  '''■and 

I  will  cause  a  commander  f'f.icQAo)  to  encamp  about  my  house."  The 
Targum  paraphrases  the  whole  passage,  "  and  I  will  make  the 
Shekinah  of  my  glory  to  dwell  in  the  house  of  my  sanctuary,  and 
the  strength  of  my  arm  of  power  shall  be  like  a  wall  of  fire 
encircling  it."     {^'h.  HP-P,  de  Lagarde;   i^^  ^p-1^,  Lond.  Polygl.) 

i^^j.  The  LXX.  render  the  word  here,  and  in  chap.  x.  4,  by 
e^eXawcoT/,  and  Aquila,  in  chap,  x.,  by  da-Trpaa-awv.  So  Vulg.  in  both 
places  exactor.     See  pp.  222  and  272. 

On  the  land  Paiastav  of  the  Assyrian  inscriptions,  see  Schrader 
Keilinschrift  u.  das  A.  T.,  p.  25,  and  his  KcUinschriften  u.  Geschichts- 
forschung,  p.  123. 

g.  v''5,  milra.  The  imperative  is  here  accented,  contrary  to 
rule,  on  the  ultimate;  so  ''Tiy,  chap.  xiii.  7.  So  ^IW  ''711?  in  the  first 
sentence  of  Jud.  v.  12,  while  the  second  two  imperatives  are  regular, 
n-iu  nw.  So  Isa.  li.  9  (see  Delitzsch)  and  H-IV,  Isa.  xxi.  2.  See 
Bottcher  §  1134;  Ewald  §  228,  d;  Ges.  §  72,  rem.  2;  Kalisch  §  Ixv.  15. 

'•yin.     LXX.,  incorrectly,  K-qpva-a^.     Some  copies  have  aXaka^ov. 


5/0  ZECIIAKIAII   AND    HIS   rROPHECIES.  [Ch.  ix.  9. 

Justin  ]\Iartyr  combines  both,   aXdXa^ov,  Kypvcrcn,  in  Z)!a/.  cum  Try- 
phone,  53,  but  in  Apol.  i.  35,  he  has  only  K-qpvcrac. 

On  account  of  "=]/  being  preceded  by  i^l^*  it  is  better  to  regard 
it  with  Kohler  as  put  for  T.i*^  (i  Sam.  ix.  12  ;  2  Chron.  xxviii.  9; 
Job  xxxiii.  22).  Others,  as  Keil,  take  it  as  a  dat.  comm.,  "/or  thme 
advantage." 

L'C'li.  LXX.  o-w^wv,  actively.  So  Syr.  and  Vulg.,  which  is  in- 
correct. The  participle  niphal  of  this  verb  occurs  only  as  a  passive. 
The  reflexive  sense  which  the  niphal  often  has  will  not  help  us  here 
(see  p.  234).  ■'^V-  LXX,  -n-pav^,  and  similarly  Targ.  and  Syr. 
Theod.  iiraKovoiv,  but  the  Vulg.  has  pauper.  Symm.  ■Kjwyo'i.  The 
latter  is  correct.  The  word  ''■?V  is  properly  a  passive  of  the  form 
''^Pi^  (Ges.  §  84,  5)  for  ''''5V,  hence  its  proper  meaning  is  afflicted. 
I^Vj  on  the  other  hand,  is  active,  lowly,  meek.  The  distinction  be- 
tween the  two  has  not  always  been  observed,  but  is  correctly  given  in 
the  last  edition  of  Gesenius'  Wortcrb.  by  INIiihlau  and  Volck.  The 
k'ri  has  often  Q^l^y,  the  afflicted,  in  cases  where  the  k'thibh  has  ^''li^y, 
the  lowly.  This  is  the  explanation  given  by  the  Sohar  on  Num.  fol. 
85,  col.  332,  "poor  and  riding  upon  an  ass."  So  on  Deut.  fol.  117, 
col.  465,  "  the  Messiah  ben  Joseph  is  poor  and  rides  upon  an  ass;" 
and  Bereshith  Rabba  cap.  75,  fol.  74,  col.  2,  etc.  See  Schottgen,  De 
Messia,  p.42,  and  Wiinsche,  Leide7i  des  Messias,  pp.  50,  70,  71, 100,  105. 

niihi^"!?.  Compare  the  similar  expressions  rif'"!^.  "i''??  (Jud.  xiv.  5), 
D>-;y  T-y^  (Gen.  xxxvii.  31).  The  plural  is  the  plural  of  kind,  '8<"P 
meaning  a  foal  such  as  she-asses  are  wont  to  bear  (see  Bottcher 
§  702,  a).  It  may,  however,  signify  here  the  meaning  given  on  p.  236. 
The  LXX,  render,  quoad sensum,  ttwAos  ve'os.  Aq.,  Symm.,  and  Theod., 
more  literally,  ttwAos  fio?  ovaSwr,  ttwAos  v\o%  ovuSo?,  or  ttwAos  v\o%  ovov. 

As  regards  the  quotation  of  this  verse  in  the  New  Test.,  in  Matt, 
xxi.  5,  the  eiTrare  T17  Ovyarpl  ^twv  with  which  it  is  introduced  is  gene- 
rally thought  to  be  taken  from  Isa.  Ixii.  11,  where  those  words  are 
found  in  the  LXX.  The  quotation  in  St.  John  xii.  15  is  introduced 
with  the  words,  fxrj  (jiojSov,  which  are  not  found  in  either  the  LXX.  or 
Heb.  Owing  to  the  words  taken  from  Isaiah,  some  MSS.  in  Matthew 
add  rjcraiov  after  iTpo(^y]Tov,  while  others  add  ^axaptov.  Bohl  has  some 
ingenious  remarks  in  defence  of  his  theory  that  the  Greek  of  St. 
ALitthew  is  a  translation  of  the  Palestinian  Volksbibel  made  from  the 
LXX.,  which  we  cannot  do  more  than  refer  to.  They  are  not,  in 
our  opinion,  at  all  convincing. 


Ch.ix.  10-12.]   CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  5/1 

10.  See  p,  240,  ff.  Instead  of  33"i."''n"r?ni.,  as  in  the  usual  text, 
where  the  tone  syllable  of  the  perf.  with  vav  conv.  is  lost  by  the 
makkeph,  Baer  edits  ''pl^ni.  with  darga.     The  Syr,  renders  the  verb 

in  the  3rd  pers.  "  and  he  will  cut  off,  etc."  'j'?  Dl^t^  "i:!"!!.  See 
p.  247,  and  note.  LXX.  render  koI  ttXtjOo';  kol  dp-^vr)  i^  iOvw. 
Schleusner  conjectures  that  they  read  nan  or  2"^,  which  is  very  doubt- 
ful. Aquila,  kol  XaX'^crec  elprjvrjv  rots  Wveai.  "1JI  l/ti'OI.  LXX.  koL 
Kardp^et  iSciTwv  tcos  OaXdaarj'i  kol  TroTajaoiv  8t€Kj8oAas  y^s,  reading  2.'''? 
for  D'P.     See  p.  248. 

11.  r\ii,'Di  has  been  diversely  explained  :  first  "as  regards  thee,'"' 
as  contrasted  with  the  heathen.  Such  a  contrast  scarcely  exists  here, 
though  mention  is  made  of  peace  being  proclaimed  to  the  nations, 
who  are  only  spoken  of  in  order  to  point  out  the  wide  extent  of 
the  Messiah's  kingdom.  Dj  may  be  regarded  as  placed  first  for 
emphasis,  and  ^^  expressed  in  order  to  strengthen  the  suffixes 
either  in  inna  D12  or  "l'"i''DS,  in  accordance  with  Ewald  §  308,  a, 
§  309?  ^)  ^  35~j  ^  '}  but  in  the  former  case  it  would  imply  that  the 
covenant  referred  to  is  contrasted  with  some  other  covenant,  or  the 
prisoners  of  Israel  contrasted  with  other  prisoners  of  a  different 
nation.  Yet  neither  of  these  can  be  thought  of.  Maurer  would 
connect  SJ  with  the  verb  Tinbti'j  "  I  will  even  send  forth  thy 
captives,"  in  which  case  ^»?  would  be  regarded  as  used  absolutely. 
This  is  the  view  adopted  by  Kohler.  See  note  on  p.  243.  DJ  some- 
times refers  not  to  the  word  which  immediately  follows,  but  to  a  word 
more  remote  in  the  sentence.  See  instances  in  Gesenius'  IVorterb., 
and  Ges.  §  151,  3.  It  is  quite  possible  to  suppose,  with  Hengsten- 
berg,  that  Jji^?"Ci^  stands  for  "even  thou,"  as  CT-n  D5  in  verse  12,  and 
the  reference  would  then  be  to  the  miserable  state  of  Zion,  but  not 
necessarily  as  contrasted  with  a  former  state. 

"'rinpp'  lias  been  taken  by  LXX.,  Vulg.,  Syr.,  Luther,  and  others, 
as  the  full  form  of  the  second  pers.  sing,  fern.,  "  thou  (fem.  referring 
to  Zion)  hast  sent  forth."  This  form  always  appears  before  sufiixes 
in  the  inflexion  of  the  regular  verb,  and  often  occurs  in  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel,  as  ''^??0  Jer.  xxxi.  31,  where  in  the  k'ri  the  usual  form 
is  given  (Ges.  §  44,  rem.  4).  There  is  no  k'ri  reading  in  this  place, 
and  moreover  the  first  person  suits  the  context  better  (see  Ges. 
Lehrg.,  p.  266).  The  Targ.  considers  the  passage  to  refer  to  the 
deliverance  from  Egypt  and  the  passage  through  the  desert. 

12.      IJI  131ti'.      LXX,  KaQyjcrecrOG  iv  6xvp<jjfjiaaL  SeV/xtot  tt/s  crvvaywyrjs 


572  ZECHARIAH   AND    IIIS   PROPHECIES.       [Ch.  ix.  12,  13. 

(connecting  nipn  with  'lipD  in  the  sense  of  gathering  together,  comp. 
Gen.  i.  lo,  and  the  niphal  of  the  verb  in  Jer.  iii.  17),  koX  dvrl  /Atas 
7)fji,€pa<i  TrapoLKi(Tta<;  (tov  8t7rAa  dvTaTroSojcro)  (tol.  Kohler  conjectures 
that  they  read  '1J1  ^"^^V  1"1J^  D^-nnni,,  but  perhaps  they  in- 
tended merely  to  give  an  interpretation  of  the  passage.     The  Syr. 

^gclX  |jj  ^;.2>  c.*vZ  >ca.  ,^  i^N*/o  JlUqio?  Jv-»ioj  iim*^o  goZ 
"remain  in  the  fortress,  ye  bound  of  the  congregation,  and  for  one 
day  I  will  repay  two  to  you."  The  Targ.  "return  that  ye  may  be  as 
strongly  fortified  cities,  ye  captives  who  have  hoped  for  deliverance  " 
(Xj^l-isjj  r^?P^1  ^P-'P^),  "  captives  imprisoned "  eV  e'XTrtSi  (Rom. 
viii.   21).  ni'V?   is   a   aTra^   Aey.  properly  meaning    ^^  steepness" 

Comp.  l-iva,  chap.  xi.  2,  and  "TJ-I^'?  '^^'"^,  a  steep  wally  Isa.  ii.  15; 
Deut.  i.  28,  and  comp.  Isa.  xiv.  13-15.  So  Hitzig,  Maurer  and 
Kohler.  The  steep  rocks  of  Palestine  are  contrasted  with  the  ">13 
(verse  11),  or  '^pit,"  the  flat  lands  of  Babylon.  Ewald  suitably 
renders  it  by  "  the  dry  land."     See  also  p.  251. 

"T'iip.  Bottcher  would  render  impersonally,  "  one  announces," 
comparing  Isa.  xvii.  5,  xxi.  11.  So  Ewald  §  200,  <7,  §  294,  b,  2.  The 
personal  pronoun,  however,  is  not  unfrequently  omitted  in  participial 
clauses  (comp.  Isa.  xxvi.  3  ;  Ps.  xxii.  29  ;  Job  xxv.  2  ;  see  Gesen. 
§  134,  2,  rem.  3,  and  comp.  Hab.  i.  5).  The  verb  makes  it  plain 
that  the  pronoun  of  the  first  person  is  that  which  must  be  supplied. 
An  impersonal  rendering  would  be  pointless.  It  is  unnatural,  as 
Kohler  has  well  observed,  to  separate  2J  from  OVn^  and  connect  it 
with  ^JJ^'OJ  treating  T'JO  Ql^n  as  a  parenthetical  sentence  :  "  I  will 
even — to-day  I  declare  it — render  double  to  thee."     See  p.  252. 

13.  '1J1  Tism  '•3.  Perf  as  future.  See  p.  252,  note  2.  riv;'^ 
at  the  end  of  the  sentence  is  to  be  viewed  as  in  apposition  to 
"  Judah,"  not  as  an  accusative  governed  by  the  following  "Ti^^^P,  as 
Hengstenberg.  No  doubt  the  punctuators  have  placed  a  zaqeph 
qaton  over  T\1'\r\'^^  but  no  other  accentuation  was  possible ;  and 
nii'P  is  separated  from  "Tixbo  by  the  disjunctive  yethibh.  The  con- 
struction of  the  first  sentence  would  otherwise  be  too  harsh.  riL"p 
must,  however,  be  supplied  as  the  object  of  ''nx?0;  one  member  of  a 
sentence  is  often  thus  supplied  from  another.  To  suppose,  as  Hitzig 
does,  an  ellipsis  of  n^?,  and  to  regard  it  as  equivalent  to  the  phrase 
in  2  Kings  ix.  24,  Exod.  xxviii.  17,  is  too  harsh.  Our  translation 
is  that  of  Ewald,  IMaurer,  Kohler,  and   Keil.     The  phrase  rilJ'i^.  Njp 


Ch.  ix.  13-15.]   CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  573 

is  only  used  here.  The  explanation  of  Gesenius,  in  his  Thes.  p.  788, 
after  Schultens,  as  if  the  phrase  were  put  for  rit:/|"^n  Tj'm.p  s?p,  is 
not  so  good.  The  Syr.  has  very  erroneously  explained  the  clause, 
*'  for  I  have  drawn  my  bow  against  Judah,  and  have  fitted  it  against 
Ephraim." 

TlDu'l.  The  LXX.  paraphrastically,  kox  if/r]\a(j)-^(ru>  ae,  "  and  I  will 
handle  thee  as  the  sword  of  a  warrior."  See  on  the  verse  generally, 
pp.  253,  ff.  Grotius  has  remarked  that  the  Jews  called  all  the  kings 
of  Syria  and  Eg3'pt,  P^  ''3??0  "  kings  of  Javan,"  because  of  their 
Greek  extraction.  See  note  2,  p.  256,  and  the  reference  there  to  this 
mode  of  speaking  in  the  books  of  the  Maccabees. 

14.  nin''  '•jnx.     The  LXX.  render  Kuptos  TravTOKpaTwp,  as  if  it  were 

nisa^*'  nin\  Syr.  \Lo--^  j-^i  "  Zord  of  lords."  P^n  Dn  i^m. 
LXX.  TTopeverai  eV  oraXo)  (XTretA^s  avTov,  perhaps  reading,  as  Kohler 
suggests,  f0^i<  (=inp''X)  instead  of  JP'^.  Syr.  "  he  will  go  forth  in  a 
whirlwind  to  the  south,"  taking  'n  as  the  accusative  of  place. 

15.  173X1  and  1t^'231.  Perfects  as  futures  in  lively  narration. 
On  this  verse  see  p.  258  and  p.  259  note,  also  p.  260. 

'151  Iti'nai,  LXX.  Koi  Karax^(Tov(TLv  avToiv'i,  k.t.X.,  "and  they  shall 
overwhelm  them  with  sling-stones."  Syr.  "  and  they  shall  subdue  the 
stones  with  a  sling."  '1^1  l^n  inti'l.      LXX.  Kai  eKTrtovrat  airovs  ws 

ohov,  omitting  I^H.  Some  copies  (see  Field's  Hcxapld)  add  to 
alfxa   avTuiv.      The   Syr.  seems   to   have   regarded  l^n  as  a  noun, 

0         7  1        o         ■>■  *  -^ 

rendering  jpo^  -*}  |a*^qX»  .oAjtJO  "and  they  shall  drink  confusion 
as  wine."  '1^1  '^3  1X?D1.     The  LXX.  have  kui  7rAy;croi;crt  Tas  4>idXa^ 

a>s  Ova-Laa-T-qpiov,  omitting  thus  n*1T|.  This  translation  perhaps 
manifests  a  desire  to  tone  down  the  strong  figures  of  the  passage, 
which  is  exhibited  even  by  the  Vulg.  in  its  rendering,  "  et  devorabunt, 
et  subjicient  lapidibus  fundae  (regarding  ^^P  ''^^X  as  an  instrumental 
accusative)  ;  et  bibentes  inebriabuntur  quasi  a  vino,  et  replebuntur 
ut  phialse,  et  quasi  cornua  altaris."  More  especially  is  this  tendency 
observable  in  the  Targum,  which  renders :  "  The  Lord  of  hosts  shall 
pity  them,  and  they  shall  rule  the  peoples,  and  they  shall  slay  them, 
and  shall  consume  the  remnant  of  them  just  as  those  who  cast 
stones  with  a  sling,  and  they  shall  spoil  their  riches  (piT'D^J),  and 
they  shall  be  satisfied  with  them,  (Ifnip  JW?'^''.!),  as  those  who  drink 
wine,  and  their  soul  shall  be  full  of  delights  (ri?lJ?l!i)  as  a  bowl 
is  full  of  meal  and  oil   (nt'^P-l  ri>"iD,  but  de  Lagarde  has  ^^^),  and 


574  ZECHARIAH  AND   HIS   rROPHECIES.    [Ch.ix.  15-X.2. 

they    shall  shine  as    the  blood   which    shines  on  the  wall  of  the 
altar"  C^n?!^  ^^^^  '^^'  "1OIPI). 
j>*_<lO|)    ij^g  ^jf  jj.  ^yere)  wine;"  see  Ewald  §  282,  e,  §  221,  a. 

16.  lOl'  )i«VD.  "  His  people  as  a  flock."  I^y  is  not  to  be  regarded 
as  the  genitive  governed  by  J^^'^,  but  as  the  accusative  of  the  object. 
See  on  this  verse,  note  on  p.  260. 

17.  On  no  as  an  interjection  of  wonder,  see  Ewald  §  330,  a. 
See  on  this  verse  the  note  on  p.  261.  Luther  renders,  "then  what 
have  they  yet  good  above  others,  and  what  have  they  yet  beautiful 
above  others?  Corn  that  produces  youths,  and  wine  that  produces 
maidens."  But  this  translation  is  indefensible.  LXX.  koL  oTvos  cuu- 
Sta^ojv  ets  TrapOevov?,  "and  wine  smell i7ig fragra7itly  to  the  virgins.'^ 
The  translation  of  the  stem  3-1J  (or,  as  Schleusner  assumes  ^^3) 
given  by  Buxtorf  {Lex.  Hcb.),  "shall  make  the  virgins  eloquent," 
cannot  be  justified. 

CHAPTER.  X. 

1 .  'O  nya.  The  LXX.  render  ny3  Koff  wpav,  and  explain  'O,  which 
means  t/ie  latter  rain,  by  TrpmfjLov  koI  oif/i/xov. 

Dnnn  rrj^y  nin\  The  LXX.  render  /c^'ptos  i-rroiqae  ^avrao-ta?,  "the 
Lord  made  the  appearances"  i.e.,  as  Vossius  (ap.  Schleusner),  the  signs 
of  coming  rain,  'n  are  "the  lightnings,"  but  the  Targum  renders  the 
word  by  fDI"',  "the  winds," i.e.f  those  which  accompany  the  thunder- 
Storm,  and  the  Syr.  jm^m-  "the drops." 

Dl^TIDOj  rain  of  heavy-shower,  torrents  of  rain.  Compare  the 
reverse  expression  it3D  D^'J^  Job  xxxvii.  6,  and  also  "iQJ^TlDl.X  Dan. 
xii.  2,  |l.*n  D-'P,  Ps.  xl.  3.  The  Targ.  does  not  express  Dt^J ;  the 
Syr.  renders  "the  early  rain,"  LXX.  veroi/  x^tyutepn'ov.  Dn?.  One 
would  have  expected  23?^  which  is  the  reading  of  several  MSS. 
and  the  Syr.,  but  this  is  no  doubt  an  emendation. 

t^''•^<?.     See  Ges.  §  124,  2,  rem.  i ;  Kalisch  §  82,  9. 

2.  D''3"ltin.      See   p.    267.        LXX.  ol  uTrocftOeyyoixevoL  SUppl.  avSpc- 

aj/T€9  or  ciKoVcs.  Syr.  JA.o*^  the  learned,  the  skilled.  Targ.  here 
^^'PpV  ^nps,  the  7uorshippcrs  of  images.  See  on  this  verse  p.  268 
and  note  4  there.      P^*.     The  Targ.  renders  DMS^  violence,  oppression. 

'^ivv'  ■"'IC-  The  tone  in  'H  is  thrown  back  on  account  of  the  great 
distinctive  closely  following. 

ny-i  I'X  ^D.     LXX.  Ston  ovk  t]v  tao-t5,  reading  J<??'"i  for  ny'i.     Aq,, 


Ch.x.  3-7-]        CRITICAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  575 

S3'mm.  and  Theod.  ttoi/xt/v.     Targ.  "  because  there  is  no  king,"  see  p. 
270.  The  Targ.  similarly  renders  D'^yin"?!?  in  v.  3,  "against  the  kings." 

3.  See  note  on  p.  271. 

4.  1JDD.  The  Syr.  takes  this  throughout  the  verse  as  a  plural. 
On  the  verse,  see  p.  272.  nss^  corner-stone,  tower,  prince,  chief. 
Compare  Jud.  xx.  2-  i  Sam.  xiv.  38;  Isa.  xix.  13.  The  Targ. 
renders  i^^??0,  •'  his  king."  The  LXX.,  whose  translation  here 
affords  little  sense,  give  it  as  a  verb,  koI  air  airov  cTreySXei/ze.  They 
render  "IH''  1300,  koL  a.7r  avrov  h-a^€.  Cappellus  conjectures  that  they 
read  "i-inj  from  "IW,  but  this  is  very  doubtful.  Targ.  n^n^^p  ri>3)p, 
"  from  his  Messiah."  The  translation  by  the  LXX.  of  '»  T\'^v>  is  also 
strange,  to^ov  eV  OvixQ,  reading  according  to  Cappellus  nonp.  The 
Targ.  renders  this  expression  n''2"i|"?  flfpJjl,  the  strength  of  his  ivar^^  the 
archers  being  the  most  important  part  of  an  army.  "i^l  ^^*''  130D, 
The  Targ.  renders  N^D?  ^•^1D3■)^  b  J-iairi^.  Pl^ap,  "  by  him  shall  all 
his  rulers  be  magnified  together ; "  Syr.  "  and  from  them  shall  all 
their  princes  proceed  together."     See  pp.  273  fif. 

5.  "dl  D''p13  'JD  -Vni..  The  subject  of  the  verb  is  Judah,  referred 
to  in  verse  3  (comp.  verse  7).  D'^plll  is  the  participle  kal,  and  the 
form  is  generally  viewed  as  indicating  an  intransitive  signification 
(comp.  vV  CPIp,  2  Kings  xvi.  7).  Elsewhere  it  is  always  construed 
with  an  accusative,  which  may,  however,  easily  be  understood  here. 
The  form,  cannot  be  proved  to  be  intransitive.  The  clear  sound  of 
the  a  has  become  obscured  in  later  writers,  and  hence  the  0.  See 
Bottcher  §  463,  ^,  §  1132,  9,  /;  Ewald  §  \^\,b  -,  Olshausen  §  164,  d; 
Gesen.  §  72,  rem.  i.  On  the  other  hand,  Kalisch  regards  such 
forms  as  intransitive  (§  Ixv.  i,  r),  and  so  Hengstenberg  and  Keil. 
Mic.  vii.  10;  2  Sam.  xxii.  43 ;  Ps.  xviii.  43,  have  been  referred  to  as 
illustrating  the  passage,  but  in  all  these  the  expression  is  rilXin  P''P|, 
and  not  as  here,  'H  P''P?,  The  rendering  of  the  Vulg.,  "  concul- 
cantes  lutum  viarum  in  preelio,"  is  scarcely  correct.  The  phrase 
seems  rather  to  mean,  "  treading  upon  their  enemies  in  the  mire." 
The  enemies  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  compared  to  the  mire  itself. 
The  clause  might  be  rendered  intransitively,  "  treading  upon  the  mire 
of  the  streets." 

6.  On  QTint^'in  see  note  on  p.  276.  X'XD.  ^^  As  if"  Zoxvv^. 
Isa.  xxix.  8;  Job  x.  19.  On  the  perfect  DTinJI'i^?,  expressing  the 
contingent  occurrence,  see  Driver  §  18. 

7.  Dnsx— vni.  Compare  verse  5.  On  the  const,  with  a  plural  verb 


s 

S76  ZECHARIAII    AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.     [Ch.  x.  7-xi.  2. 

sec  Ges.  §  146,  i ;  Kalisch  §  77,  6.  LXX.,  kol  ta-ovTai  <Ls  /ia^^Tat 
Tov  'Ecf)pa:Lij..  V  1^3.  See  chap.  ix.  15.  7.?J.  See  note  i  on  p.  277. 
S.  npi'J'X.  LXX.  a-i-jiiaivCi.  Aq.,  Syram.  and  Theod.  o-vpi^w.  On 
the  form  of  the  verb,  see  Driver  §  49  ;  Ges.  §  128,  i.  See  note  2 
on  p.  278.  '131  13-11.  Targum  mcorrectly,  H^p:  lin^Vy  ipx  n  xp?  Hip^l^, 
"  and  they  shall  be  multiplied  as  it  is  was  said  of  them  they  should 
be  multiplied."     See  note  i,  p.  278. 

9.  See  p.  285.  '131  1''ni.  LXX.,  kKOpixpovai  tu.  re'/cva  avTwv,  and 
so  Syr. 

10.  See  on  this  verse  p.  287,  and  pp.  290,  ff.  Cn?  XV?D*  iO). 
Comp.  Josh.  xvii.  16.  The  verb  is  used  impersonally,  or  some  such 
word  as  2tpO  is  understood.  LXX.,  kol  ov  fjn]  viroXucfiOfj  i$  avTwv 
ovSe  €is. 

11.  See  pp.  294,  ff.     Delitzsch  has  been  by  mistake  mentioned 

on  p.  293  as  agreeing  with  the  view  of  Marck  and  Koster.     He 

regards  the  construction   as   a  case  of  apposition.     '131    niV   W2. 

o    y  ■>>   V  y      0  c     ■>       of  y     ■>> 

LXX.,    iv   OaXdcrcrrj  crTevrj.      Syr.  JV;.'^   ^£)C7UO   |j-Xoj   JIc.aO  }.:ilJO 
ti        7  "J 

|)  \-       "  and    affliction   shall  pass  through  the  sea,  and  shall  roll 

waves  in  the  sea."  Vulg.,  "et  transibit  in  maris  freto,  et  percutiet  in 

mari  fluctus."      The   Targ.  paraphrases   the  verse,  "  and  miracles 

(ppJ)  shall  be  done  to  them,  and  great  acts  (P,''^^"''))  as  have  been 

done  to  their  fathers  when  they  passed  through  the  sea  (de  Lagarde 

reads  »<0"'3  limarDa,  the  Lond.  Polygl.  omits  the  first  word),  and 

they  shall  see  the  punishment  ('D  ri13y")-1D?)  of  their  enemies,  as  their 

horses  are  covered  in  the  waves  of  the  sea,  and  all  the  kings  of 

the  peoples  shall  be  confounded,  and  strength  shall  cease  from  the 

Assyrians,  and  the  dominion  of  the  Egyptians  (or  "of   Egypt,"  as 

Lond.  Polygl.)  shall  pass  away"  ('l^v)-     I'^e  LXX.  render  "if^s;  'D  by 

Ta  f3d6r)  TTOTafxCiv. 

llt^'X.       LXX.,  'AcrcrvpiW*     "AXXo';-    (Syixari^ovToiv ;    perhaps    this 

latter  rendering  is  that  of  Aquila,  but  see  Field's  Hcxapla. 

12.  The  LXX.,  instead  of  nin^2j  have  iv  Kvpiia  6c<Z  uutwv. 

CHAPTER  XI. 

2.  ens,  cypress.  On  the  rendering  of  the  Syr.,  see  Ges.  TIics. 
See  p.  300  and  note  there.  ^33  '3.  Observe  the  use  of  die  perfect 
after  *3,  for  the  event  though  future  was  deemed  certain.  See 
Driver  §  14,  A 


Ch.  xi.  2-5.]     CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  577 

"Ti!»3n  ■iy\  ^'■The  inaccessible  forest.^'  On  the  use  of  the  article 
before  the  adjective  alone,  see  Ges.  §  iii,  2,  a  ;  Kalisch  §  Ixxxiii. 
15,  c.  This  construction  occurs  also  in  chap.  iv.  7,  xiv.  10,  and  is 
used  when  a  greater  stress  is  laid  on  the  adjective  than  the  noun. 
The  k'ri  reading  "i''V3lI  probably  arose  from  a  wish  to  correct  this 
unevenness.  "'"'V?  must  be  considered  as  a  noun  denoting  steepness, 
inaccessibility,  although  it  never  actually  occurs  in  that  signification. 
The  rendering  of  the  A.V.,  "the  forest  of  the  vintage,"  gives  no 
good  sense,  nor  is  the  marginal  rendering,  "  the  defenced  forest," 
which  follows  the  Vulg.  and  Syr.,  a  good  one. 

3.  See  pp.  302-3.  ri72,!.  The  ~  is  to  keep  the  consonants 
more  apart  and  distinct  (Bottcher  §  205,  e'). 

4.  n3-inn-|Si*.  See  p.  305.  Comp.  Ps.  xliv.  23  (E.V.  22).  The  Syr.  in 
this  verse  and  in  verse  7,  renders  the  expression  by  "  the  lean  sheep." 

^.  "IDS^  irTil^roi.  The  verb  is  used  distributively,  hence  singular. 
So  also  in  the  next  sentence  ?1J3n''  N?.  l^yNI,  shortened  for 
T'C'yi^l.  in  short  hvely  diction.  See  Ewald  §  73,  b,  §  235,  b;  01s- 
hausen  §  78,  a;  Kahsch  §  iii. 4  ;  Ges.  §  23,  2,  b ;  Bottcher  §  428,  4. 

•10L*>*^;|.  N?"!.  "  And  they  do  not  feel  themselves  guilty  I"  Comp.  Jer. 
ii.  3,  1.  6,  7  ;  Hos.  v.  15.  DiT'i;").  It  is  strange  that  here  we  have 
the  masc.  suffix,  though  the  feminine  precedes  and  follows.  Some 
MSS.  have  the  fem.,  but  this  is  evidently  a  correction,  just  as  some 
MSS.  have  the  masc.  suffix  instead  of  liT'Jp  in  the  beginning  of 
the  verse,  and  Dnvl?  instead  of  i^vy  at  the  close.  The  change 
seems  best  explained,  with  Kohler,  by  supposing  that  the  prophet  for 
the  moment  thought  of  the  people  symbolised  by  the  sheep,  though 
he  immediately  afterwards  continued  his  allegory.  The  "shepherds" 
are  rightly  explained  by  the  Targum  as  the  rulers.  Schrader  notes 
on  this,  in  his  Keilinschriften  und  das  A.  T.,  that  "  shepherd  "  occurs 
in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  in  the  sense  of  "prince."  Thus  the 
"true  shepherd  "  is  one  of  the  epithets  assumed  by  Sargon,  and  ri'u 
(-1^1)  is  used  frequently  as  an  attribute  of  gods  and  kings,  as  well  as 
the  abstract  word  ri'ut  (^■''^1),  government.  Comp.  the  Homeric 
7rot/^€V€s  Aawv.  Kimchi  [strangely  regards  the  plural  in  this  passage 
as  the  plur.  excell.  referring  to  God,  as  Ps.  cxlix.  2  ;  Job.  xxxv.  10  ; 
and  McCaul  seems  to  approve  of  this  exposition,  which,  however, 
would  only  introduce  confusion  into  the  passage. 

liT'py.  This  reading  is  the  one  mentioned  by  the  Masora.  The  read- 
ing Dn"'7i;  found  in  some  MSS.  is  a  correction.     See  Baer's  edition. 

P  P 


5/8  ZECHARIAH   AND   IIIS   PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  6. 

6.  '1J1  X^VDD.  '■'■  I  am  delivering  over."  The  participle  here  may 
be  best  rendered  as  a  present,  that  is  as  a  present  indicating  an 
action  which  continues  for  a  considerable  time.  The  breaking  up  of 
the  peace  of  the  nations  seems  to  be  referred  to  (see  p.  307).  On 
the  expression,  compare  2  Sam.  iii.  8.  'vXnTiS  inriDI.  Syr.,  wrongly, 
^'and  they  shall  divide  the  land."  "1 1^2  ^^'^.  On  this  expression 
see  Ewald  §  301,  b;  Ges.  §  124,  2,  rem.  i  \  Kalisch  §  82,  9.  See 
also  on  this  verse,  note  on  p.  307. 

7.  |N:;n  *^:y  p7.  The  LXX.  translate  cts  t^v  Xavaavtrr/v,  reading 
pX  n''3y337.  Burger,  after  Flugge,  proposes  to  read  i^^^'H  ""JWSb, 
explaining  it,  "Ics  marchands  ou  courtiers  du  troupeau."  The  Vulg., 
propter  hoc  (namely,  that  which  was  stated  in  verses  5,  6),  0  patipcres 
gregis,  and  the  Syr.,  "  on  account  of  the  congregation  of  the  sheep"  take 
the  137  erroneously  as  a  preposition.  The  Masora  parva  says  that 
P?  is  feminine,  i.e.,  stands  for  \^.  So  in  our  A.V.,  but  this  is 
arbitrary.  Kimchi  translates,  "in  truth,"  "truly,"  which  meaning 
the  word  never  elsewhere  bears,  and  so  Dathe,  Rosenmuller,  and 
others,  with  the  margin  of  the  E.V.  Ewald  notes  that  this  particle, 
so  frequently  used  by  the  prophets  to  denote  the  consequence  of 
something  mentioned  before,  is  here  used  in  the  middle  of  tlie  sen- 
tence. The  new  thought  introduced  lies,  in  his  opinion,  in  the  ex- 
pression 'if n  '•'•JU  and  he  consequently  thinks  that  the  "  therefore  " 
used  in  this  uncommon  manner  is  more  clearly  expressed  by  "  yea 
verily."  The  P?  '■'•therefore"  can  scarcely  connect  the  clause  with 
the  statements  of  verses  5  and  6  (Hitzig,  Hengstenberg),  as  in  that 
case  it  would  have  stood  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  nor  even  with 
the  Divine  command  as  given  in  verse  4  (Maurer),  but  must  rather 
be  connected  with  the  i^^'n  '•''iy  as  Ewald  prefers  (§  353,  b).  The 
latter  designation  expresses  that  which  is  a  logical  deduction  from  the 
very  name  just  given  them,  njinn  JS^'TlX ;  for  because  they  were 
"  a  flock  of  slaughter,"  "  slaughtered  "  and  not  "  fed  "  by  their  shep- 
herds, therefore  they  were  "the  most  miserable  flock."  Compare,  on 
the  superlative  force  of  the  expression,  Jer.  xlix.  20,  1.  45  ;  2  Chron. 
xxi.  17.  The  l^^^'n  ^"•31?  have  been  explained  by  others  as  a  portion 
of  the  larger  flock,  either  as  part  of  the  human  race  (von  Hofmann), 
or  the  true  children  of  God  everywhere  (Kliefoth),  or  the  godly  and 
pious  in  Israel,  the  ecclesia  pressa.  But  the  passages  of  Jeremiah  re- 
ferred to  show  that  it  is  quite  lawful  to  explain  the  expression  of  the 
whole  of  the  people.       ii<^'n  in   this  case   does  not  stand  for   the 


Ch.  xi.  7.]        CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  579 

nJinn  iS^f^  but  is  used  generally  as  a  description  of  all  such  sheep  as 
are  upon  the  earth  (comp.  John  x.  16).  In  this  view  of  the  verse 
we  agree  in  the  main  with  Kohler.  Keil  takes  the  opposite  view. 
On  the  expression  "  sheep  of  slaughter,"  compare  Ps.  xliv.  23  (E.V. 
verse  22). 

mppJD.  Fem.  plur.  of  ^i?.'?,  a  staff.  The  stem  is  not  ?pO,  as  Gesenius 
and  Fiirst  give,  but  rather  ??P,  to  be  in  motion.  The  form  is  like 
p^n  from  W"^,  or  more  exactly  like  TP.  from  yV"!,  See  Dietrich's 
edition  of  Ges.  Worterb.,  or  that  of  Miihlau  and  Volck.  Bottcher 
observes  that  the  word  is  fem.  when  it  signifies  a  fresh  stick  from  the 
tree  (Gen.  xxx.  37),  but  masculine  when  it  means  a  staff  for  a 
journey,  or  a  rod  to  correct  with  (Hos.  iv.  12).  Hence  here 
T\h\)p  ^rf,  while  five  MSS.  have  the  fem.  inS^iO  'hf.  See  Bottcher 
§  650,  I,  and  §  656. 

Oyj.     See  note  p.  308.      LXX.,  KaAXos,  Aq.  and  Sym.  evTrpivraa. 

^D*??-'',  instead  of  the  ordinary  "'Ci^?'''-  Cases  of  this  punctuation 
in  the  abs.  state  are  rare.  See  Ewald  §  26^,^;  Olshausen  §  161,  a  ; 
Bottcher  §  850,  2.  But  Kohler  prefers  to  consider  the  word  here  as 
in  the  construct  state  before  DHD  understood.  Gesenius  also  views 
the  form  as  the  construct  state  used  for  closer  connexion  (Ges. 
§116,6). 

Qv^n.  LXX.,  Aq.,  and  Symm.,  <rxo^vi<T/xa,  punctuating  Qv^lI, 
o-xoivKr/xa  being  a  rope,  or  a  piece  of  ground   measured   therewith, 

an  allotment.  Syr.  ^^^i^,  a  rope,  ^v'^'^.,  benig  properly  the  par- 
ticiple kal  can  scarcely  mean  "the  united,"  with  Hitzig,  who  explains 
it  of  the  alliance  between  Israel  and  Judah,  and  appeals  in  defence 
of  this  intransitive  sense  of  the  participle  to  the  analogy  of  L!''iyv  in 
chap.  iii.  7.  ''^H  is,  however,  transitive,  whence  ^v^n  is  properly 
"  binders,"  as  Gesenius  renders  it.  ti'hlT\  is  rendered  by  Kimchi 
''  destroyers,"  which  is  possible.  Kimchi  thus  explains  it :  "  when 
they  were  evil,  then  evil  came  upon  them,  and  then  the  staff"  (De- 
stroyers) was  there,  but  when  they  did  good,  then  the  good  came 
upon  them,  and  the  staff"  Beauty  (pleasantness)  was  there."  But 
this  is  not  reconcileable  with  verse  14.  As  the  staff"  DW  is  inter- 
preted by  some  to  mean  ^'- pleasantness^^  so  the  staff"  Dv2n  has  also 
been  interpreted  to  signify  "woes,^'  as  the  plural  of  abstraction  (see 
Ewald  §  179,  «),  or,  as  Ewald  there  renders  it,  harmony,  mianimity. 
This  variety  of  meaning  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  verb  ■'^n  pro- 


58o  ZECIIARIAII   AND   IIIS   rROPIIECIES.  [Ch.  xi.  7,  S. 

perly  means  to  twist,  to  turn,  whence  the  idea  of  writhui^,  t-cvisting, 
in  pain,  and  from  twisting  as  a  cord  comes  the  meaning  of  to  bind. 

8.  See  on  this  verse,  pp.  312-321.  nroxi.  ^'- And  I  cut  offJ' 
Tlie  verb  properly  means  a<^avi^etv.  Comp.  on  the  meaning  ot 
the  verb,  Exod.  xxiii.  23;  i  Kings  xiii.  34;  2  Chron.  xxxii.  21; 
Ps.  Ixxxiii.  5.  The  form  of  the  verb  in  the  first  person  is  seldom 
shortened  with  vav  conversive,  as  here  (Ewald  §  232,  g;  Kalisch 
§  xlix.  3). 

D'lnn  r\\yyy  ns.  This  perhaps  ought  to  be  translated  rather  the 
three  shepherds,  than  "  three  of  the  shepherds  "  (comp.  i  Sam.  xx.  20  ;• 
Isa.  XXX.  26),  but  the  article  might  be  used  to  qualify  the  genitive 
alone  (see  Ges.  §  m,  i,  rem.).  E.Kod,  xxvi.  3,  9,  are  conclusive 
instances  of  this  construction  with  numerals.  Blayney's  translation, 
"  I  will  set  aside  the  authority  of  the  shepherds,"  is  utterly  impos- 
sible. It  requires  a  Hebrew  word  to  be  invented  which  has  no 
existence. 

The  suffixes  in  Dn3  and  D^'?^  are  supposed  by  Hengstenberg, 
Ebrard  and  Kliefoth,  to  refer  to  the  three  shepherds.  But  it  is 
scarcely  possible  that  different  persons  can  be  meant  from  those 
referred  to  by  ^^'^^  in  the  next  verse.  Moreover  it  is,  as  Keil 
has  observed,  impossible  to  take  the  imperfect  with  vav.  conv. 
(iVP^l)  in  the  sense  of  a  pluperfect,  preceded  as  it  is  by  the 
same  verbal  form  (inDSi)  in  this  verse,  and  followed  by  a  similar, 
"^P^},  in  the  commencement  of  verse  9.  The  shepherd  coul.d 
scarcely  be  said  to  be  wearied  with  them  after  they  had  perished  or 
had  been  cut  off.  The  LXX.  render  tVpni  by  ySapw^r/o-erat,  "  will 
be  distressed  (or,  provoked)  against  them."     See  Schleusner. 

''n3  occurs  in  Hebrew  only  here  and  in  the  k'thibh  in  Prov. 
XX.  21.  It  cannot  be  explained  here  by  the  corresponding  word  in 
the  Arabic,  nor  even  perhaps  after  the  Syriac  usage,  to  loathe,  as 
Gesenius  and  Fiirst.  Targ.,  'Jn^lD?  nvp,  IinTO=?J^  ^r  "because 
their  soul  rejected  (loathed)  my  service;"  Syr.,  "and  even  their 

souls,  ...  \\  <_,Qi:,  barked  against  me ; "  LXX.,  ai  \l/v)(pX  airwv 
iiTOipvovTo  eV  €/Ae  («/.  cx.  iiropevovro).  Differently  Aquila,  iiripKafTev 
iv   ifioL.     (Vulg.  variavit  in  me.)      Symm.,  ^Kfxaa-ev  iv  ifjLoL 

^nn  seems  in  Chald.  and  later  Heb.  to  be  used  in  the  sense  of 
to  be  ripe,  properly,  to  break  forth  out  of  the  bud,  to  burst  it,  to  cast 
it  off,  and  hence  to  reject  (see  Levy's  Ncuhebr.  u.   Chahi.   Worterb. 


Ch.  xi.  8-II.]  CRITICAL  AND  GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  5S1 

ilber  die  Tahnudim  u.  MidrascJiiiii).  Hence  there  are  no  grounds  to 
suppose  that  the  reading  in  the  Hebrew  text  ought  to  be  regarded 
as  a  softening  down  of  an  original,  ^i'^,  as  Geiger  has  maintained 
in  his  Urschrift,  p.  270. 

In  reference  to  Ewald's  conjecture  with  regard  to  2  Kings  xv,  10, 
referred  to  on  p.  320,  the  Hebrew  text  of  that  passage  is  ^'^>'^'\>  -in.?!! 
'1^1,  and  the  LXX.  translation,  koX  iiraTaiav  avrov  Ke^Aaa/^  Kol  iOavd- 
rwcrav  avrov,  kol  i/SaaiXevcrev  avr  avrov,  where  Ke/3Aaa/A  is  jUSt  a  mis- 
understanding for  Di^"?3p,  de/ore  the  people,  or  rather  before  people,  i.e., 
publicly,  as  Bottcher  as  shown.  See  Thenius'  Comm.  on  the  passage. 
The  word  is  very  variously  written  in  the  Greek  MSS.  See  Pusey's 
note  on  p.  509  of  his  Minor  Prophets.  Ewald  has  inserted  this 
imaginary  monarch  in  his  Geschichtstabellc  I  We  have,  however, 
erred  in  stating  on  p.  320  that  Ewald's  conjecture  has  been  adopted 
by  no  critic  of  eminence  except  Dean  Stanley,  as  the  same  view 
has  been  taken  by  Fiirst  in  his  Gcsch.  dcr  bibl.  Literatur,  2ter 
Band,  p.  355- 

9.  The  imperfects  in  the  latter  clauses  of  this  verse  are  translated 
by  Hengstenberg  as  futures,  but  it  is  better,  with  Kohler  and  others, 
to  regard  them  as  used  in  a  jussive  signification. 

The  participles  nn^n  and  n"].n?3n  are  here  used  in  the  signification 
of  present  participles  (Bottcher  §  997,  2,  a;  Ges.  §  134;  Kalisch 
§  100,  4).  The  feminine  form  is  to  be  explained  as  collective,  the 
feminines  being  used  as  neuters  in  a  collective  signification  (Gesen. 
§  107,  3,  d;  comp.  Kalisch  §  77,  10).  The  flock  is  elsewhere  referred 
to  in  this  verse  (D?tl^)  and  in  the  preceding  (i^C?,  Qp*?^-)  as  mas- 
culine, because  the  people  symbolised  thereby  were  uppermost  in 
the  mind  of  the  prophet  (comp.  also  verse  5). 

nniyi  X'aTiX  n*J'N.  See  Ges.  §  124,  2,  rem.  4;  Kalisch  §  Zi,  12. 
On  the  subject  matter  of  the  verse,  compare  Jer.  xv.  i,  2,  xix.  9  ; 
Deut.  xxviii.  53. 

ID.  y"!f>5j.  ^^And  I  broke  it:'  The  LXX.,  who  render  the 
imperfects  with  vav  conv.  in  this  verse  as  futures,  translate  here, 
aTropfnijyui,  I  will  cast  it  away  (so  also  in  verse  14),  as  the  broken 
staff  was  no  doubt  cast  away. 

II.  The  LXX.  render  this  verse,  koI  yvwaovrat  ol  X.avava'iot  ra 
TrpojSara  to.  (f)v\aaa6fx€vd  fxot  Stort  Aoyos  Kvpcov  1<jtl.  Compare  their 
rendering  of  verse  7.  "i^l  P  IVT'l.  Compare  Jer.  xxxii.  8.    ''?  Vl^) 

N-in  n.}n;;""i51..     Similar  expressions  occur  in  a  good  sense  in  chap.  ii.  i^, 


5S2  ZECHARIAH   AND    HIS   rROPHECIES.     [Ch.  xi.  11,  12. 

vi.  15.  Compare  also  the  equivalent  statements  met  with  in  the 
sense  of  our  passage  in  Jer.  xUv.  28,  xvi.  21  ;  Ezek.  xvii.  21, 
xxxix.  23  ;  Mai.  ii.  4.  Note  also  the  test  given  for  distinguishing  true 
prophets  from  false,  in  Deut.  xviii.  21,  22  ;  Jer.  xxviii.  9.  See  on  this 
verse  in  general,  pp.  325,  ff.  As  to  Hitzig's  suggestion  to  take  ^J^tK 
as  a  noun  with  suffix,  as  observed  in  note  p.  326,  it  may  be  further 
noted  that  the  tne  after  Q'lDw'n  could  not  otherwise  be  expressed, 
^IPf^  would  be  too  vague.  The  translation  of  this  clause  by  the 
LXX.  (see  above)  is  incorrect. 

With  respect  to  the  Psalter  of  Solomon  referred  to  in  our  note, 
p.  32S,  it  is  well  to  note  here  that  a  later  edition  of  these  Psalms  has 
been  published,  with  an  able  critical  commentary,  by  the  Roman 
Catholic  scholar.  Dr.  E.  E.  Geiger,  Augsburg,  1S70.  Prof.  Dr.  Oscar 
von  Gebhardt,  of  Halle,  the  editor  of  the  Grcecus  Venetiis  (Leipzig, 
1S75),  is  at  present  engaged  in  the  preparation  of  a  new  edition, 
with  a  critical  commentary,  and  with  a  translation  of  the  Greek  into 
Hebrew  by  Prof.  Dr.  Franz  Delitzsch.  All  these  Psalms  may  not 
belong  to  the  same  age, — the  seventeenth  Psalm  seems  certainly 
to  refer  to  Pompey, — but  some  of  them  may  possibly  be  older. 
The  arguments  adduced  by  Geiger  in  favour  of  the  later  date  of 
their  composition  are  very  strong,  and  similar  views  have  been 
defended  by  Movers,  Delitzsch,  Keim,  and  Hilgenfeld.  But  see 
Schiirer's  Neutest.  Zcitgeschichte. 

12.  'i?pti'"'1.  The  LXX.  here,  as  in  other  places,  render  this  verb 
by  to-Ti^/zt.  Compare  their  translation  of  2  Sam.  xiv.  16,  Job  vi.  2, 
Isa.  xl.  12.  So  Aquila  here.  Compare  the  same  usage  in  Herod, 
ii.  65.  ^D3  Cti'^C'.  On  the  construction,  see  Ewald  §  2S7,  /;  Ges. 
§  120,  4,  rem.  2  ;  Kalisch  §  90,  13. 

The  Jewish  interpretation  of  this  chapter  is  worthy  of  note 
which  is  given  by  R.  Isaac  Troki  in  the  CJiizzuk  Emtinah,  pub- 
lished by  Wagenseil  in  his  Tela  Jgnca.  The  staff  of  beauty  he 
considers  to  mean  the  governorships  of  Zerubbabel  and  Nehe- 
miah,  both  of  whom  were  supposed  to  have  sprung  from  the  house 
of  David.  By  tlie  staff  Dv3r;^  which  he  renders  destroyers  (after 
Cv?DP,  Cant.  ii.  15),  he  understands  the  rule  of  the  Asmonreans, 
who  unlawfully  usurped  the  supreme  power.  Herod  and  his  sons 
are,  according  to  him,  signified  by  the  foolish  shepherds,  while  the 
three  shepherds  were  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  ALalachi,  who  all 
died   in    one   month.      This  latter  statement  is  quite  unhistorical. 


Ch.xi.i2-i6.]  CRITICAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  583 

The  thirty  pieces  of  silver  are,  according  to  his  view,  not  to  be  taken 
literally,  but  signify  the  thirty  just  men  who  kept  the  precepts  of  God 
after  the  days  of  Zerubbabel  and  Nehemiah. 

13.  1V1\n.  LXX.,  Symm.,  to  )(wve.vTrjpiov .  Itala,  conflatoriiim 
(see  pp.   330,  ff).     Aquila,  correctly,  6  ttAuo-tt;;.     Vulg.,  statuarius. 

Syr.  j]. .  AaO,  the  treasury.  Targ.,  ^5/?1P^,  which  Buxtorf  ren- 
ders treasurer.,  and  has  here  that  meaning.  Levy  {Neuheb.  u.  Chald. 
IVorterl).)  maintains  that  this  title  means /rt'^/^d';;/,  being  compounded 
of  "1^,  with  prosthetic  ^,  and  ?3  i.q.,  lord  of  all,  Hke  Katholikos,  and 
indicates  a  priestly  office  which  was  sometimes  distinct  from  the 
treasurer,  and  sometimes  of  higher  dignity, .  Riickert  and  Ewald 
(§  45?  ^)  understand  the  word  here  as  an  Aramaism  for  "i^*i^, 
t7'easury.  It  has  also  been  explained  as  a  mistake  for  "i^'T^^  (von 
Ortenberg),  or  as  another  form  of  that  word  (Hitzig)  ;  or  as 
a  secondary  form  of  1>*1''^,  treasuj-er,  as  Gesenius  in  Thesaurus,  etc. 
Two  MSS.  of  Kennicott  read  "i^MXn"7X^  while  five  have  "iVt*n  ri''3  PX, 
See  pp.  330,  ff. 

'1J1  "ipM  "ilX.  Lit.,  "  the  glory  of  the  price,"  i.e.,  a  glorious  or  mag- 
nificent price,  spoken  ironically  (see  Ewald  §  293,  ^ ;  comp.  Gesenius 
§  106,  i).     LXX.,   Kat  aKeij/ofjiai   (reading  ^^l^   instead  of  "^l?)    ct 

SuKlflOV  IcTTLV,    OV  TpOTTOV   iSoKLfJidaOrjV  VTTep  aVTWV. 

mn''  n''3.  Drake  seems  to  regard  with  approbation  the  conjecture 
of  Mede  (  Works,  book  iv.,  epist.  xxxi. )  that  St.  Matthew  read  in 
place  of  ^''2  the  phrase  JT]?.  That  phrase  occurs  in  Ezra  and  Esther, 
and,  as  Mede  observes,  is  literally  Kara  avvray/jia  Kvpiov,  and,  he 
thinks,  it  is  rendered  freely  by  the  evangelist,  KaOa  aweraie  /xol  KvpLos. 
The  conjecture,  however,  is  quite  unnecessary.     See  p.  342. 

14.  mni<n.  'LXX.,Tr]v  KaTd(7x^(Tiv,possesswn,  reading '^■'jT^^l}.  Other 
copies  have  t-qv  hiaOrjKrjv  (see  Field).  The  noun  rnnt^  is  an  abstract, 
a  denominative  from  ^'^,  used  only  here  in  Biblical  Hebrew,  but 
found  in  later  Hebrew.  On  its  form,  see  Bottcher  §  644,  a.  On 
the  passage,  see  p.  343. 

15.  ''?'l^..  LXX.,  (xTretpos.  On  the  adjectival  ending  "t,  see 
Ewald  §  164,  a;  Ges.  §  86,  2,  5. 

16.  See  on  this  verse  the  note  on  p.  348.  n3-'^3n.  That  which 
can  stand,  the  healthy.  So  the  LXX.,  to  oXoKX-qpov.  Vulg.,  id  qtiod  stat. 
Other  commentators,  as  mentioned  by  Kdhler,  wrongly  take  the  word 
to  mean  standing  still  from  fatigue.       l-yjn.    See  note  on  p.  350. 


584  ZECHARIAH   AND   IIIS   rROPHECIES,  [Ch.  xi.  i7-xii.4. 

pID'  jn'DTDI.      LXX.,  Kal  T0U9  a(rTpay(j.\ov<;  avTcJv  eKcrrpti/^et. 

17.  ^ri '•in.  The  ''t  is  not  the  suffix,  as  Ewald  takes  it,  but 
rather  the  termination  used  often  in  the  const,  state  in  poetry.  So 
|N'i:n  ^2p,  See  Ges.  §  90,  3,  a ;  Ewald  §  211,  b  ;  Bottcher  §  833,  «  ; 
Kalisch  §  xxvi.  i,  a,  and  especially  Delitzsch's  introduction  to  Ps. 
cxiii.     See  on  the  phrases  in  this  verse  p.  346  and  the  note  there. 

tiO*n  cn*.     On  the  inf.  abs.  see  Ges.  §  131,  3,  a;  Kalisch  §  97,  6. 


CHAPTER   XII. 

1.  On  the  superscription,  see  chap.  xi.  i,  and  the  note  on  p.  355. 
See  also  on  the  participles  note  i  on  p.  356. 

2.  ''3Ji<  njrij  more  emphatic  than  ''J^n. 

^y^'PlD.  Compare  n^ririn  DT3,  Isa.  li.  17,  22.  npynn  |:^,  iai7ie  of 
reeling,  or  staggerhig,  Ps.  Ix.  5  (E.V.  verse  3).  See  p.  361,  and  note 
there.  LXX.,  ws  irpoOvpa  a-aXevofMeva.  Vulg.,  stiperliiiiiiiare  crapiiliz. 
Syr.,  "  a  gate  of  fear." 

"\y\  m\r\'^  ^r  DJI,  The  LXX.  seek  to  avoid  the  difficulty  in  this  verse 
by  translating,  /cat  Iv  rrj  'lovSata  ccrrat  TrepLo^r]  eVt  'lepovaaX-^fji..  See 
the  remarks  on  pp.  361,  ff,  and  especially  the  note  on  p.  362.  Ewald, 
in  his  Lchrb.  §  295,  c,  explains  the  phrase  as  meaning,  "they  must  do 
the  business  of  the  war,"  after  the  analogy  of  i  Chron.  ix.  n  ;  Ezra 
iii.  3,  but  we  prefer  Lange's  view.  The  Targ.  is  HTin.''  n''3"7  fiXl 
xb^r\'h  NTya  pp^JJ^  T?  N»»py  pMn.*,  «and  even  those  of  the 
house  of  Judah  the  peoples  shall  bring  as  by  the  hand  of  violent 
men  into  the  siege  against  Jerusalem."  Compare  the  note  on  chap, 
xiv.  14. 

Several  MSS.  read  njipn  for  ^''.J)\  but  incorrectly. 

3.  HDOUD  px,  Y^y^Y^^XiOov Ka.ra.TTaTovfx(vov," a  stoncthat is tratnpled 
on.     Similarly  Syr.     The  Targ.  simply  ^py\  j^N  " a  stone  of  offenee" 

'\'Crw^  taiJ^.  LXX.,  cyUTrat^wv  lp.TTa.L^cTai,  reading  perhaps  P"]V*'. 
The  inf  absolute  used  before  a  verb  does  not  always  belong  to  the 
same  conjugation  as  the  verb  with  which  it  is  conjoined,  but  the  inf. 
absolute  kal  is  often  used  in  preference  to  any  other  conjugation, 
because  it  expresses  the  notion  of  the  verb  in  the  simplest  man- 
ner.    See  Kalisch  §  97,  9  ;  Bottcher  §  990. 

4.  See  the  remarks  on  p.  365. 


Ch.  xi.  5,6.]      CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  5S5 

5.  ''-'^ha.  See  the  note  on  chap.  ix.  7.  '^  ^^;JDS^  The  LXX. 
render  £vpr;o-o/Aei/  eavrois  Tov?  KaTOLKovvTa<; 'lepovcraXi^ix,  "  we  will  find 
on  our  side  (dat  coinm.')  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem."  They  thus 
take  nvox  from  ^^*0,  as  if  nyps=t<ypx  (first  pers.  sing,  impf.), 
rendering  it  freely  in  the  plural.  The  reading  ><^*05<  occurs  in  three 
MSS.,  but  there  is  probably  no  change  in  its  vocalization  from  the 
received  text.  The  Targ.  seems  to  endeavour  to  combine  both  the 
derivations,  that  from  ><V9  and  that  from  I'P^,  and  reads  ''?^7  instead 
of  ''5P"'  V,  which  reading  is  found  in  two  MSS.,  and  is  approved  of 
by  Dathe,  Gesenius  {Thes.,  s.  7'.),  Bleek,  and  von  Ortenberg.  In 
this  case,  the  Hebrew  text  would  be  translated,  "there  is  strength 
for  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  in  Jahaveh "  etc.,  and  so  the 
Targuni  renders  '131  D.?piT ''5J?;^  Ji^l-IS  nsjjit'^S,  "salvation  has  been 
found  for  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  in  the  Word  of  the  Lord  of 
hosts  their  God."  Aquila  renders  KaprepTjo-oV  yuot,  reading  ny?^J<,  or 
considering  the  form  without  daghesh  as  the  imp.  piel  with  n  para- 
gogic.  One  of  Baer's  MSS.  actually  reads  ''rnyf?S.  Another  MS. 
of  his  reads  Y'i^V^^)  P^rf.  kal,  but  no  feminine  subject  occurs  in 
the  sentence.  The  Vulg.  translates  similarly  to  Aquila,  "  conforten- 
tur  mihi  habitatores  Jerusalem  in  Domino  exercituum  Deo  eorum." 
Hitzig  would  divide  the  words  v  n^'OS  differently,  alter  their 
vocalization,  and  by  changing  the  ''  into  1  produce  vH^*  DS^  which 
he  translates,  "  if  the  inhabitants  have  indeed  cried  to  Jahve 
(gewimmert  haben),"  that  is,  if  they  cry  to  God  mightily  in 
prayer  they  will  be  succoured.  The  usage  of  ?i^^*  in  Isa.  x.  30 
might  support  such  a  rendering  of  the  proposed  phrase,  but  the 
conjecture  is  arbitrary,  and  the  meaning  educed  does  not  suit  the 
passage.  i^y?^  is  properly  a  noun  feminine  as  HD^'X  gin/f,  nb]!^ 
imrighteoiisness,  ny'lti'  cry,  i^l?^'  security.  On  the  construction,  see 
Ges.  §  106,  I,  rem.  2. 

?.  Dat.  comm.,  ^''  for  me"  (Kalisch  §  86,  9,  a  ;  Ges.  §  154,  3,  e, 
Lehrg.  §  195,  4).  v  is  here  for  -IJ?,  the  singular  being  used  to 

indicate  that  the  thought  was  that  of  each  of  the  princes  of  Judah 
previously  mentioned. 

6.  "iViS.  LXX.,  u)s  SaXoV.  '3  means  originally  a  bason,  and  then 
a  brazier.  The  LXX.  have  taken  the  word  as  used  by  metonymy  for 
the  wood  which  is  burned  therein.     Similarly  Syr.,  ^'like  a  coal  of  Ji re." 

The  plural  C*^'^  is  frequently  used  in  the  sense  of  faggois,  as 
Gen.  xxii.  3,  19;  Deut.  xxi.  22;  Josh.  x.  26. 


586  ZECIIARIAII   AND   HIS    PROPHECIES.        [Ch.  xii.  6-8. 

1*PV,  i-<l-i  "''?y  properly  denotes  a  loose  sheaf  not  firmly  bound  to- 
te  1 
gether.        1?3X1.    The  qadma  over  the  ^^  is  the  substitute  for  metheg. 

n*nnn.     Comp.  chap.  vi.  12,  xiv.  10. 

7.  nyj'Nia  as  opposed  to  n31"inN3,  Deut.  xiii.  10 ;  1  Kings 
xvii.  13.  P'ive  MSS.  read  nyj'Ni2?,  ''■as  at  the  first,''  which  is 
supported  by  the  LXX.,  Vulg.  and  Syr.  The  original  reading  might 
possibly  have  been  njb'Sli^  Deut.  ix,  18.  'plJn  n"?.  The  im- 
perfect naturally  follows  "'^^^  as  expressing  the  result.  Bottcher 
§  949,  d. 

8.  ny?  nin^  |:;,    Comp.  Ps.  iii.  4,  n.ys  \yo  ni.n;.  nrisi. 

DPii'n^  I^V,  Collective,  as  in  previous  verse,  as  is  shown  by  the  fol- 
lowing Qn3.  7k^3jn.  The  tottering,  or  the  weak.  Comp,  2  Sam. 
ii.  4.  LXX.,  6  do-^£vwv,  which  is  the  sense  given  by  the  Targ.  and 
Syr.     The  Vulg,  renders  ^"^  qui  offenderit  ex  eis." 

Drr-JS?.  "Before  thejn"  i.e.,  leading  them  on.  So  Syr,  '^zaho 
t's  before  them."  See  note  on  p.  368.  Venema  translates,  "  the  weak 
will  be  in  that  day  among  them  as  David,  and  the  house  of  David  as 
God  (or  /;/  God,  for  he  suggests  the  reading  D"'n7N3  without,  however 
any  MS.  authority),  as  the  Angel  of  Jahaveh  before  them."  This 
rendering  does  not  coincide  with  the  Hebrew  accentuation,  and 
would  require  rT'DDI.  The  house  of  David  evidently  means,  as 
Maurer  notes,  the  king  who  was  to  spring  from  the  house  of  David. 
Comp.  Isa.  vii.  13,  where  it  includes  the  princes  belonging  to  the 
royal  family.  On  the  passage,  see  p.  3S0.  Umbreit  rightly  remarks, 
"  The  Messianic  expectation  cannot  ascend  higher  in  the  exaltation 
of  the  royal  house  :  for  we  see  the  expected  Anointed  walking  in  the 
superhuman  height  of  God-like  omnipotence."  He  observes  also  that 
Ernst  Meier  {Theol.  Stud.  u.  Kri't.,  1842,  p.  1041)  recognises  here  a 
prediction  of  the  Messiah,  though  free  from  any  dogmatic  preposses- 
sions on  such  points.  Tholuck  {Die  Proph.  u.  ihre  Weiss.')  also 
observes  that  this  passage  contains  the  striking  statement  concerning 
the  future  Ruler  from  the  house  of  David,  that  he  should  possess 
Divine  powers,  if  it  does  not  actually  go  so  far  as  to  distinctly  assert 
his  Deity.  The  Vulg.  "  domus  David  quasi  Dei"  scil.  domus,  and 
the  LXX.,  ws  otKos  ®f.ov,  though  possible  as  translations,  cannot  be 
regarded  as  giving  the  sense  of  the  passage,  for  "  the  house  of  God," 
as  Schegg  observes,  is  not  used  in  the  Old  Test,  as  a  figurative  name 
of  the  family  of  God,  though  the  expression  "  sons  of  God  "  perhaps 
occurs  in  that  sense. 


Ch.  xii.  9,  lo.]  CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  587 

9.  See  remarks  on  pp.  3S0,  ft'.,  and  note  on  page  3S0. 

nbm-\'  hv  D^X2n.  Compare  ^V  rhv,  Isa.  vii.  i.  Baer  notices  that 
one  MS.  (de  Rossi,  319)  has  the  note  CX^-'^in  i<"D,  namely,  that  other 
copies  have  that  reading.  But  Baer  observes  that  this  contradicts 
the  Masora,  which  says  that  Q)^??-^']  is  only  found  in  Num.  xxxi.  42, 
and  Isa.  xxix.  7,  8. 

10.  '131  TiaS'^'l.  Perf.  with  vav  conv.  connected  with  the  subst. 
verb  iT'i^l  in  the  preceding  verse.  Compare  chap.  viii.  2,  and  note 
on  p.  162.  On  the  phrase,  see  note  i,  on  page  383.  The  ^\Titer 
continues  the  narration  in  the  perfect  tense. 

in.     See  note  2,  p.  383. 

'1J1  ^^X  IDOni.  The  reading  'hi^,  "  u/i/o  me,"  is  that  of  all  the 
old  versions  and  of  the  great  majority  of  the  MSS.,  and  must  be 
regarded  as  the  original.  The  reading  "  ?/nfo  him "  IvX  is  doubt- 
less a  correction,  as  de  Rossi  has  abundantly  shown,  and  a  most 
natural  one,  too,  on  account  of  the  following  Iv^.  Geiger  asserts 
{Urschrift,  p.  58)  that  vX  is  a  correction  of  1  vS,  but  he  has 
adduced  no  grounds  for  his  opinion.  The-  latter'  reading  arose 
as  a  very  natural  marginal  emendation  (see  p.  384),  and  probably 
without  any  intention  of  tampering  with  the  text.  Even  Rabbi 
Isaac  Troki,  the  able  Jewish  controversialist,  in  his  Chizzuk  Emunah, 
given  in  Wogcnsirs  Tela  Ignea,  pp.  303,  304,  arguing  against  the 
Christians  quotes  the  reading  vS.  The  reading  1  vJ>  is  defended  by 
Kennicott,  Ewald,  Geiger,  Bunsen,  etc.  Many  have  asserted  that  it 
is  supported  by  John  xix.  37,  Rev.  i.  7  ;  but  St.  John  seems  merely  to 
have  given  the  sense  of  the  passage,  and  not  quoted  its  actual  words. 

Others,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Bleek,  Reinke,  point  the  word  v^., 
and  consider  it  as  a  preposition.  So  Bottcher  {Nei(e  Aehrenlese). 
The  latter  explains  it  thus,  "  Dann  blicken  sie  auf  das,  was  Jener 
war  =  auf  die  Person  Jenes  [den]  sie  erstochen,"  i.e.  then  they  look 
upon  that  which  that  one  was,  or,  upon  the  person  of  that  one  whom 
they  pierced.  So  also  Lehrb.  §  897,  8.  The  form  of  the  preposi- 
tion ""iP^?  only  occurs  in  the  book  of  Job,  and  there  but  four  times. 
The  suggestion  of  von  Ortenberg  to  insert  the  verb  and  copula 
•1^^?^"i.  after  1  vX  and  before  "I'^i^  nx  is  arbitrary.  There  is  no  trace 
of  this  reading  even  in  the  Targ.,  which  paraphrases  the  verse,  "  and 
I  will  pour  out  upon  the  house  of  David  and  upon  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem  a  spirit  of  mercy  and  compassion  and  \>'^  ^^li^JP  |W?:"l. 
^^•f^y   inj?pn^   ■h^^m'T),  they  shall    pray    before  me   because   that 


588  ZECIIARIAII   AXU    HIS    PROPHECIES.  [Ch.  xii.  lO. 

they  have  been  driven  away  (from  their  land),  and  shall  mourn  for 
him."  This  a  loose  paraphrase  of  what  the  Targumist  regarded  as 
the  sense. 

The  translation  given  by  v.  Hofmann,  in  his  Weissagung  nnd 
Erfulliuig,  ii.  p.  152,  is  "they  shall  look  to  me  with  reference  to 
him  whom  they  had  pierced."  In  his  ScJu-iftbaveis,  ii.  2,  p.  562, 
he  renders  the  clause  "  my  heroes  {i.e.  the  house  of  David  and  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem)  see  him  whom  they  have  pierced."  7^, 
Dv>?  may  possibly  occur  in  the  meaning  of  mig/ity,  heroes,  Job  xli. 
17  ;  Ezek.  xxxii.  21  (see  Gesenius) ;  though  this  is  disputed  by  Furst, 
Hitzig  and  Hengstenberg,  and  not  without  cause.  But  even  granting 
that  the  word  has  such  a  meaning,  it  never  occurs  with  a  suffix. 
jNIoreover,  as  Kohler  observes,  the  verb  t3''3n  is  commonly  construed 
with  ^X,  and  V^?  must,  therefore,  naturally  be  taken  as  the  prepo- 
sition with  suffix  of  first  person.  Had  the  prophet  wished  to  express 
the  meaning  of  ^'heroes,''''  he  could  have  used  the  simple  "113^.  But 
no  such  subject  was  required,  as  the  sense  of  the  passage  would 
have  been  clearer  without  such  an  addition. 

X*S  ni<  is  the  object  to  the  transitive  verb  1"ip''.  The  trans- 
lation given  by  the  LXX.  is  against  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew. 
They  render  av^"  mv  KarwpxW^-VTo  "  because  they  insulted  ;"  Aquila 
renders  ahu  w  l^eKivTqa-av  ;  Symm.  e/jLTrpoaO^v  €TTi.^(.K(.vTrja-av ;  Theo- 
dotion  alone,  koX  linfiXiipovTaL  7rp6<s  jxk  ets  ov  iieKevrrjcrav.  Arnheim 
(in  Zunz's  Translation  of  the  Bible)  translates  thus,  "  sie  schauen  zu 
mir  auf  (bei  Jeglichem)  den  sie  durchbohrt  haben,"  "  they  look  up 
to  me  (with  respect  to  each  one)  whom  they  have  pierced,"  no 
doubt  explaining  the  passage  substantially  as  Ewald  has  done  (see 
p.  384.)  Others  as  Riickert,  Umbreit,  Burger,  translate,  "  to  me, 
him  whom  they  have  pierced,"  to  which  translation  it  has  been 
objected  that  the  Hebrew  in  such  a  case  would  rather  have  been 
*^1"ii5T"'P'^  v^?.,  which  Bottcher  considers  conclusive  even  against 
the  reading  V7X.  This  objection  cannot,  however,  be  considered 
valid;  compare  the  cases  cited  in  Ges.  §  123,  2,  footnote.  Kohler 
adduces  also  as  a  suitable  example  the  relative  sentence  in  Jer. 
xxxviii.  9,  where  it  is  said  of  Jeremiah  TJ^H'/J^  -ISvy'iTlv"^  ns- 
Other  cases  are  Gen.  xxxi.  22  ;  Isa.  xlvii.  1 2.  This  is  the  view  taken  by 
the  Vulg.  "  et  aspicient  ad  me  quern  confixerunt,"  and  by  the  Syriac. 
On  the  ns  as  the  sign  of  accusative  before  "i"'^,  see  Ewald  §  332,  a. 
Hitzig  fancifully  considers  that  the  ns  is  to  be  regarded  as  similar 


Ch.xii.  ICHI3.]  CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  589 

to  the  A  and  O  of  the  Apocalypse  (i.  8),  thus  designating  Jahaveh  as 
the  Eternal.  Inasmuch,  too,  as  the  numerical  value  of  nx  is  401, 
and  the  numerical  value  of  liT'^ki'''  (Isaiah)  is  identically  the  same, 
Hitzig  concludes  that  the  murder  of  Isaiah  is  here  referred  to,  who 
was,  as  a  prophet,  a  representative  of  Jahaveh. 

As  regards  the  verb  •I'^i'^^,  it  is  said  that  one  MS.  of  Kennicott 
reads  •I'^i^"],  which  occurs  in  Hebrew  only  in  the  sense  of  to  leap,  to 
dance.  It  has  been  supposed  that  the  translation  of  the  LXX.,  KUTMp- 
X'qfavTo,  implies  some  such  reading,  as  the  Greek  word  means  to 
dance  m  triumph  over  one.  The  supposition  is  not  necessary,  for  as 
Schleusner  and  others  have  observed,  the  LXX.  may  have  taken  ip"l 
to  pierce,  as  figuratively  used  for  insulting;  just  as  3pJ,  which  has 
the  same  original  meaning,  is  used  of  cursing,  blaspheming.  Calvin 
took  this  view  of  the  passage,  "  metaphorice  hie  accipitur  confixio 
pro  continua  irritatione,"  and  in  his  Comment,  on  John  he  denies  its 
reference  to  the  literal  crucifixion  of  our  Lord.  This  view  has  been 
adopted  by  many  scholars,  as  Rosenmiiller,  Theiner,  Gesenius  (in 
Thes.),  Fiirst  in  Worterb.  But  "ipl  is  not  used  elsewhere  in  such  a 
signification,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  depart  from  its  simple  mean- 
ing, which  is  rightly  defended  by  Ewald  and  Hitzig,  as  well  as  by 
Hengstenberg,  Kdhler  and  Keil.  It  is  also  the  sense  which  is,  as 
we  have  seen,  given  by  Aq.,  Symm.,  Theod.,  Syr.,  and  the  Vulg. 

Ivy  nSDI.  Not  as  Dathe  "  they  shall  mourn  over  it,"  (ea  de 
re)  i.e.  the  crime  committed,  but  as  is  plain  from  the  sequel  "  over 
him  "  or  "  for  him."  "iTl^n.  "  The  oidy  one,"  an  only  son,  comp. 
Amos  viii.  10  ;  Jer.  vi.  26.  It  is  used  in  Gen.  xxii.  2,  16,  with  the 
addition  of   P.        The  feminine  is  used  of  an  only  daughter   in 

Jud.  xi.  34.      LXX.,  ws  eV  dyaTTT^TOj. 

"i^DVP.  Inf.  abs.  hiphil  of  1"i^,  to  be  construed  as  HDDI  pre- 
ceding, see  Ges.  §  131,  4,  a;  Kalisch  §  97,  3.  It  might  be  re- 
garded as  intransitive,  with  Gesenius  in  the  Thesaurus,  or,  which  is 
preferable,  as  transitive  with  an  ellipsis  of  "^SPP?  with  Kohler  and 
Keil,  the  latter  of  whom  compares  Dn-lipri  T3pp,  Jer.  vi.  26,  from 
the  preceding  "I2D  ;  or,  with  Hitzig  and  Fiirst,  with  an  ellipsis  of 
''???  after  Isaiah  xxii.  4. 

11.  See  the  note  on  p.  392. 

12.  'K'O  niriDti'O.  On  the  const,  see  Ges.  §  loS,  4;  Ewald  §  313, 
a  ;  Kalisch  §  82,  9. 

13.  ^yoJi'n,     See  note  2,  on  p.  399. 


590  ZECHARIAII   AND   HIS    PROniECIES.      [Ch.  xiii.  i-6. 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

I.     See  the  note  on  p.  409, 

3.  1"iDX1,  Perf.  with  vav.  conv.  connected  with  n^ni  in  the 
commencement  of  the  verse  which  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  perf. 
proph.  in?*  10S1  V3X.  Comp.  2  Sam.  xvi.  11.  The  addition  of 
''  is  made  for  emphasis. 

Thou  shalt  not  live.  Compare  for  subject  matter,  Deut.  xviii.  20; 
2  Kings  X.  19.  On  the  expression  '*  Ct^a  ^pw' 131^  comp.  Deut. 
xviii.  20  ;  Jer.  xiv.  50. 

liTlpTI.  LXX.,  (ru/ATToStovcrtv  avTov,  "  shall  restrain  "  or  "  hind  him" 
not  necessarily  reading,  as  Schleusner  suggests,  "^P^,  but  more 
probably  toning  down,  as  they  do  in  other  places,  the  apparent 
harshness  of  the  statement.  So  also  the  Syriac.  But  Aq.,  Symm. 
and  Theod.,  koX  iKKevTrjcrovcnv  avTov. 

IXSan?.  Not  necessarily,  with  Hesselberg  and  Reinke,  "  in  the  act 
of  prophesying"  but  "w;  account  of  his  prophesying^'  or  "  his  having 
Prophesied."  Comp.  the  same  construction  in  2  Chron.  xvi.  7, 
xxviii.  6. 

4.  'IJI  1C'a\  Not  as  Hengstenberg,  "  they  will  desist,  with  shame, 
from  their  vision  in  their  prophesying,"  but  rather,  according  to  the 
usual  sense  of  ^13  when  construed  with  iP,  "  they  will  be  ashamed 
each  of  his  vision,  on  account  of  his  prophesying." 

inX23n?  is  for  ixpsn?^  as  in  verse  3  (see  Ewald  §  238,  e;  Ges. 
§  74,  rem.  2).  The  form  is  akin  to  that  of  n"?  (see  Bottcher 
§  1083,  13). 

On  the  hairy  mantle,  see  p.  422,  and  2  Kings  i.  8  ;  Isa.  xx.  2  ; 
Matt.  iii.  4;  Heb.  xi.  37. 

5.  nonj^  nay,  as  in  Gen.  iv.  2.  ''33X  emphatic.  The  substan- 
tive verb  is  implied;  see  Ges.  §  121.  i. 

6.  10X1.  And  he  shall  say,  or  one  shall  say  (Ewald  §  294,  l>). 
LXX.,  Kai  e'pw.     Syr.,  "  and  they   shall  say  unto  him." 

"  Between  thine  hands."     See  p.  427. 

*n-Dn  TC'X.     Comp.  Ges.  §  138,  i,  rem.  i  and  3,  and  §  143,  i. 
■•QriXO  JT'a.      LXX.,  wrongly,  cV  tw  oiko)  tw  ayaTrr/rw  fxov. 
The  Targ.  renders  the  verse  :  "  and  he  shall  say  to  him,  \Miat  are 
these  stripes  (i^nnp)  which  have  come  upon  us?     Are  they  not  on 


Ch.  xiii.  6,  7.]     CRITICAL   xVND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  59I 

account  of  the  work  of  our  (so  de  Lagarde,  but  Lond.  Polygl.  reads 
"  thy  ")  hands  ?  And  he  shall  say,  Deservedly  have  we  been  beaten 
on  account  of  the  sins  which  we  loved." 

7.  "'"I'ly.  On  the  tone,  see  note  on  chap.  ix.  9.  Compare  as 
to  the  subject  matter,  Isa.  lii.  i,  Ix.  i.  Though  Ewald  and  v.  Or  ten- 
berg  consider  chap.  xiii.  7-9  properly  to  be  the  conclusion  of 
chap,  xi.,  Bleek  and  Hitzig  have  rightly  opposed  that  view.  See 
p.  433.  In  addition  to  the  arguments  there  alluded  to,  v.  Ortenberg 
alleges  that  no  prophet  ever  closed  his  prophecy  with  such  a  terrible 
description  of  woe  as  that  in  chap.  xi.  17.  But  this  statement  is 
scarcely  correct,  for  that  chapter  ends  with  a  description  of  the  de- 
struction to  fall  upon  the  oppressor  of  Israel,  and,  therefore,  in- 
ferentially  announces  a  blessing  to  the  people  of  Jahaveh.  It  need 
not  therefore  be  viewed  as  any  exception  to  the  general  usage  of  the 
prophets. 

''yT'py.  LXX.,  eTTi  Tous  TTotfieVas  /xou,  pointing  ''i^l.  Hitzig 
suggests  that  ''^T!,  "  my  friend"  would  be  better.  "I3J.  A  man,  not, 
however,  necessarily  indicating  the  human  in  contrast  to  the  divine,  as 
Hengstenberg  thinks.  The  word  shows  that  an  individual  person  is 
referred  to,  and  cannot  well  be  regarded  as  a  collective  designation,  as 
Calvin,  with  the  LXX.,  understood  it.  No  article  could  have  been  used 
with  this  noun,  as  it  is  in  the  construct  state,  nor  before  the  genitive 
following  because  it  is  qualified  by  a  suffix.  Hence  the  word  is  not 
necessarily  indefinite.  On  the  construct  state,  as  used  in  apposition 
as  here,  see  Ges.  §  116,  5.  Compare  T^.'^PD  ^'5^,  Deut.  xxxiii.  8  ; 
latlp  Dy  Ps.  cxlviii.  14 ;  "  the  people  near  him,  the  people  of  his  near- 
?iess"  (see  Delitzsch  on  that  passage).  LXX.,  eVt  avhpa  iroXiT-qv 
jxov.  Aq.,  CTTt  avSpa  (rv/x(j>vX6v  [J-ov.  Symm.,  ctti  avSpa  tov  Xaov  jxov. 
Theod.,  cTTt  avhpa  7rXr](TLov  avrov.  Vulg.,  siipcr  viriim  cohczrentem 
mihi.     Syr.,  "against  the  man,  my  lover  (u*.iaArf>)-" 

■^n.  Masculine,  although  ^"^n  is  feminine,  as  the  sword  is  per- 
sonified and  addressed  as  an  individual  in  the  first  imperative  ''1-iy. 
Compare  Gen.  iv.  7,  where  nt<Dn  is  also  construed  with  the  mascu- 
line for  similar  reasons  (see  Ges.  §  148,  rem.  2).  The  sword,  though 
personified,  is  treated  as  a  feminine  in  Jer.  xlvii.  6.  Hitzig  considers 
the  imperative  as  addressed  to  some  unknown  person,  which  would 
explain  the  difficulty.  Kliefoth,  who  would  refer  this  verse  to  some 
future  denial  of  Christ  by  the  world  at  large,  makes  the  extraordinary 
remark  that  the  shepherd  is  said  here  to  be  struck  but  not  killed. 


592  ZECIIARIAIi   AND   HIS    PROniECIES.       [Ch.  xiii.  7,  S 

But  no  such  subtlety  is  conveyed  under  the  expression  here  used. 
To  strike  with  the  sword  is  always  used  in  the  sense  of  to  kill  (comp. 
Josh.  viii.  24,  X.  30,  xix.  47).  The  LXX.  have  also  the  plural, 
TraTa^are  tous  Troi/ic'vas  kol  iK(nrd(raTe  to.  Trpo/Jara.  So  the  Cod.  Vat. 
and  Sin.,  but  the  Cod.  Alex,  and  Compl.  have,  Trdra^ov  t6v  Trot/teVa  • 
KOL  BLda-KopTna-OrjcTovTat  to.  irpofSaTa  r^s  TroLfxvr]^. 

"iJI  ('•^'iDni  The  copula  is  not  to  be  regarded  here  as  simply 
combining  two  independent  sentences,  but  as  coupling  the  imperfect 
in  the  second  clause  with  the  imperative  in  the  first,  thus  indicating 
the  result.     On  the  phrase  "  to  turn  one's  hand  back,"  see  p.  439. 

D^iy.^'n"^i;.  The  participle  only  occurs  here.  Bottcher  (Neue 
Aehrenlese,  1020)  notices  that  this  form  of  the  participle,  as  being 
active,  must  be  rendered  not  the  little  ones,  but  rather  those  who 
makes  themselves  as  little,  the  poor,  the  humble.^^  The  Arabic  ^^-^ 
is  not  equivalent  to  "^"V^,  small,  which  is  >j*>o  (see  W.  Wright's 
Arab.  Grammar,  vol.  i.  §  230,  rem.  a,  d,  with  §  232,  rem.  c).  The 
LXX.  and  Symm.  render,  €7riToi)s  /aik/jous;  some  copies,  as  Cod.  Alex., 
cTTi  Toiis  TTot/AeVas;  Other  copies,  combining  both  readings,  lirX  roi's 
uiKDous  TTOtueVas.  Aquila,  kin  tous  [Trot/AeVas]  /Jpaxets.  Theod.,  eVt 
Tous  vcwrepors.  Syr.,  j  A  V\  Vx,  ''against  the  overseers.''  The 
Targum  renders  the  verse,  "Sword,  show  thyself  (^?|ri^)  against 
the  king,  and  against  the  prince  his  fellow,  who  is  as  he,  who  is  like 
him  {^h  ■'^ll  '^"'^'1?"^.),  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts ;  kill  the  king,  and 
the  princes  shall  be  scattered,  and  I  will  bring  back  the  stroke 
of  my  power  (""J^l-I^^  nnr?  2''ni^"i)  against  the  seconds,"  i.e.,  those 
who  rank  next  to  the  monarch. 

The  text  is  quoted  twice  distinctly  in  the  N.  T.,  as  well  as  referred  to 
in  other  passages.  In  Matt.  xxvi.  31,  yeypaTrrat  yap  •  Trara^w  To\\-uOijxiya 
Koi  hiaa-Kopina-Oy'ja-ovTaL  rd  Trpo/Jara  tt/s  7rotp,v7ys,  and  similarly  in  INIark 
xiv.  27,  save  tliat  rr^s  iTOLjxv'q<;  is  omitted.  The  words  in  the  N.  T.  are 
not  therefore  quoted  in  this  case  from  the  LXX.  (see  our  remarks  on 
p.  443),  but  they  substantially  agree  with  the  Hebrew.  The  addi- 
tion of  T7/S  7roip,v77s  is  considered  by  Bohl  as  "  a  real  Targumic  addi- 
tion," and  to  be  in  favour  of  his  theory  noticed  in  the  note  on  p.  2,Z^- 

8.  D^5P'"''S.  So  Deut.  xxi.  17  ;  2  Kings  ii.  9  (see  Ewald  §  269,  l>). 
Lit.,  a  mouth  of  tioo,  a  mouth-portion  for  two,  an  expression 
founded  upon  the  custom  of  placing  a  double  portion  of  food 
before  those  whom  it  was  intended  to  honour.     Comp.  Gen.  xliii.  34 


Ch.  xili.  8-xiv.  2.]    CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  593 

(Hengstenberg).  •irn.3''  may  possibly  refer  to  death  by  the  sword, 
and  •ly^^?!'  to  death  by  pestilence,  as  Drusius,  Hengstenberg,  and 
Reinke  think.  The  second  verb  may,  however,  be  preferably  con- 
sidered as  defining  the  sense  of  the  first  more  completely  (Ges. 
§  142,  3,  ^)- 

9.  On  the  idea  of  melting  and  purifying,  compare  Isa.  i.  25, 
xlviii.  10 ;  Jer.  ix.  6  ;  Mai.  iii.  3  ;  Ps.  Ixvi.  10,  etc. 

'131  N"ip^  XI n.  The  mascuUne  is  used  because  the  purified  remnant 
is  treated  as  one  individual.  Similarly,  though  feminine,  r\'''dh^r[  is 
construed  in  the  preceding  verse  with  "in-|1,  while  in  the  previous  part 
of  this  verse  it  is  spoken  of  as  resolved  into  its  component  parts ; 
hence  the  use  of  the  masc.  plural  suffixes.  On  the  expression 
U^2.  N"ipj  comp.  Is.  Ixv.  24,  and  on  the  passage  in  general,  see 
Hos.  ii.  23  ;  Jer,  xxiv.  7,  xxx.  22,  etc. 

^mDN,  The  accent  is  pashta,  which  is  a  postpositive,  and  hence 
repeated  over  the  tone  syllable,  which  is  here  the  penultimate.  The 
perfect  is,  however,  used  for  the  perf.  with  vav.  conv.,  though  the 
ordinary  accentuation  is  retained.  In  lively  narrative  the  perfect  is 
often  thus  used  without  vav  preceding.     See  Bottcher  §  974,  i?. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

1,  On  the  expression,  "  a  day  is  coming  for  Jahaveh,"  see  note  2, 
on  p.  455.        "Thy  spoil."     See  the  note  on  p.  458. 

2.  D''Jll3n.  The  munach  is  used  instead  of  metheg,  but  not,  as 
Ewald  considers  (§  96,  a,  foot  note  4),  because  the  article  in  the  ante- 
penultimate syllable  appeared  to  the  punctuators  of  less  importance 
than  the  rare  vowel  in  the  penultimate.  For  metheg  in  general  is  not 
used  with  the  article,  as  C:''»»n,  Neh.  ix.  6,  unless  in  cases  where  the 
article  is  followed  by  a  letter  without  daghesh  and  pointed  with 
sh'va,  '^??9P,  Lev.  iii.  3,  to  which  usage  there  are  certain  exceptions. 
The  metheg,  or  the  munach  which  in  this  passage  takes  its  place,  is 
used  to  indicate  that  the  kametz  is  long  (a),  not  kametz-chatuph  (5), 
as  it  is  generally  regarded.  The  metheg  is  used  for  a  similar  reason 
in  nSN  (munach  for  metheg)  Gen.  1.  17.  n3S*,  Ps.  cxviii.  25  (see  the 
critical  edition  of  the  Psalms  by  Baer  and  Delitzsch).  The  word 
is  not  to  be  read  hottim,  as  even  Gesenius  thought,  but,  as  partly 
recognised  by  Rodiger,  in  the  twentieth   edition   of   Ges.   Gram., 

Q  Q 


594  ZECHARIAH   AND   HIS   PROPHECIES.         Ch.  xiv.  2-5. 

bCxiim,  the  daghesh  after  heavy  nicthcg  serving  merely  to  distinguish 
C*n3,  the  participle  plural  of  013,  This  is  proved  by  the  syllable 
having  sometimes  an  accent  (as  Exod.  viii.  7,  xii.  7),  which  it  would 
not  if  the  vowel  was  short.  See  Noldeke  in  Merx'  Archiv.  i. 
p.  456,  and  Baer,  p.  66 ;  also  Miihlau  and  Volck  in  the  last  edition 
of  Gesenius'  Wortcrhuch.  Kautzsch  (Gesenius'  Gr.  §  66)  remarks  in 
addition  to  the  reasons  there  assigned,  that  the  Babylonian  vocaliza- 
tion has  finally  shown  that  bdtun  is  the  correct  pronunciation. 

n^^j^Tl.  The  punctuators  considered  the  verb  ^^^  as  an  ob- 
scene expression,  and  hence  have  always  substituted  3?*^.  So 
here  nn^acj'n,  which  from  the  k'ri  has  crept  into  the  text  of  many 
MSS,  Comp,  Deut.  xxviii.  30;  Isa.  xiii.  16;  Jer.  iii.  2.  The  vowels 
in  the  k'thibh  in  all  these  places  belong  to  the  k'ri  reading  and 
not  to  that  in  the  text.  Bottcher  regards  this  as  an  instance  of  a 
passive  form  of  kal  and  would  read  it  Hip^'^'ri.  The  perfect  occurs 
in  Jer.  iii.  2,  and  the  imperfect  is  also  found  in  Is.  xiii.  16  (see 
Bottcher  §  906,  d).      LXX.,  ixoXwO-^a-ovTau     Schol.,  KOLTaa-Orja-ovTai.. 

n7l32— XV^I.     See  note  on  p.  459. 

3.  lonpn  DV3.  On  the  meaning  of  ?,  see  Ges.  §  iiS,  3.  ^^i? 
is  a  poetical  word,  only  found  in  prose  in  2  Sam.  xvii.  11.  On  the 
LXX.  transl.,  see  the  note  on  p.  464.  The  Targ.  thinks  that  the 
reference  is  to  the  victory  at  the  Red  Sea.  ' 

4.  I'xp  n^n^  K^a.  Adverbial  accusative  (see  Ewald  §  280,^; 
Ges.  §  118,  3).  The  construct  case  is  occasionally  used  before 
adjectives  qualifying  nouns,  especially  with  such  as  express  the  ideas 
of  greaf,  bad,  and  the  like.  So  n2"l  noq,  Great  HaJiiaih,  Amos 
vi.  2  (the  absol.  state  is  n»D) ;  also  "^na  n^3,  2  Kings  xxv.  9  ;  15?  ^"D?^ 
2  Kings  xviii.  17  (see  Ewald  §  287,  a).  Fiirst  regards  K*A  as  an 
absol.  state  of  a  noun  of  that  form  found  only  in  this  passage  in  the 
singular.  This  is  unnecessary.  The  plural  is  ri1''X3.  The  transposed 
form  is  met  once  in  the  k'thibh,  ri1i<''J,  2  Kings  ii.  16,  and  must 
be  read  niK""]!.  (Bottcher  §  811),  for  which  the  k'ri  put  the  usual  form. 
The  LXX.  render  the  phrase  here  x^^^  H-h"-  o'^o^P"»  ^  ^'^O'  Sf^(Ji 
chasm.  The  form  i*''?.  only  occurs  here  and  in  verse  5  as  the  construct 
of  5^:^,  the  usual  form  being  ^5.     In  Isa.  xl.  4,  a  form  ^^'5  also  occurs. 

5.  Ul  N^3  DnD31.  The  LXX.,  Kttt  <f>paxO)](reTat  17  <f)dpay$  twv 
opewv  /Aov.  They  read  here,  with  the  oriental  Jews,  ^^P^^  ^^^ 
niphal  from  DOD.  So  also  Symm.  This  reading  is  adopted  by  the 
LXX.  throughout  the  verse,  which  they  render  kuI  iyKoWrjOyja-crai 


Ch.  xiv.  5-7]      CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  595 

(jidpayi  ope'cov  ews  'lacroS,  kol  ifji,(f>pa)(6T^creTai.  (here  again  the  LXX., 
with  Symm.  and  Syro-Hex.,  read  D^P^l  instead  of  !2^?31.)  KaOm  ive- 
<f)pdyr]  (CiW)  for  ^W?)  iv  rats  rjixepai's  (free  translation  of  ^^.?P)  tov 
crvcrcreLcrnov.  The  Orientals  have  not  this  reading  in  the  two  latter 
cases.  Field  gives  'Ao-ar/A  as  the  reading  of  other  copies  of  the  Syro- 
Hex.  The  Syr.  and  the  Vulg.  follow  the  Masoretic  punctuation.  The 
Targum  follows  the  Oriental  reading,  i.e.,  reading  in  the  first  instance 
D^ipJI..  The  reading  eoriim  in  the  Vulg.  translation  ''  et  fugietis  ad 
vallem  niontium  eorum,"  is,  as  has  been  noted  by  Ribera,  Schegg, 
and  others,  a  simple  mistake  of  a  copyist  for  "  meoru?n"  which  Jerome 
has  in  his  Comment.  The  Oriental  reading  seems  to  have  also  been 
that  of  Josephus,  and  hence  his  description  given  on  pp.  447,  448  of 
the  stopping  up  of  the  valley,  so  that  the  roads  and  pleasure-gardens 
of  the  king  were  closed  up.  The  same  reading  was  that  of  R.  Salomo 
ben  Yizhak,  Ibn  Ezra,  etc.     See  on  the  passage  the  note  on  p.  476. 

The  Afidrash  Cohcleth,  fol.  73,  col.  4,  observes  with  regard  to  the 
coming  of  Jahaveh  noted  in  this  verse  :  "  There  were  many  prophets 
in  Israel  whose  names  are  not  known  ;  these  will  the  Lord  .in  the 
future  bring  in  the  train  of  Messiah,  as  it  is  written,  then  will  the 
Lord  come,  and  all  the  holy  ones  with  thee." 

On  "^tpV  see  note  on  p.  479.  In  one  of  the  MSS.  used  by  Baer 
the  note  occurs:  DJ  ^J^V^  nsij  pi  ISW  VK'ip.  'n^sn  D^THO  Dnson 
n^jDy  n^:i>np  D13-in  jnJV,  namely,  that  some  correct  MSS.  have 
the  reading  "all  his  saints  with  him"  as  the  Targum  translates. 
But  Baer  observes  that  the  Masoretic  reading  was  certainly  C)''E?'lp. 
(as  in  the  general  text),  for  the  Masora  observes  that  1''^1p.  only 
occurs  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  3,  Ps.  xxxiv.  10.  Kimchi  expressly  states 
that  "^^^  is  the  reading  of  this  passage. 

6.  pXDp*  rinp''.  See  note  on  p.  481.  LXX.,  ovk  eo-rat  ^w?,  koI  ij^vxv 
KOL  ■n-dyo<s  eo-rat  ficav  rfp^epav,  connecting  it  with  the  first  words  of  the 
next  verse,  and  omitting  the  copula  in  iTTil  with  which  that  verse  be- 
gins. TheTarg.isT'^>'i(qu.'''!y?)"'iy  Vd'^^_  ^Itn;;  '•n^  i6  5^-inn  xny?  \n^i, 
"  and  it  shall  be  in  that  time  there  will  be  no  light,  but  cold  and  frost." 

7.  See  note  on  pp.  483  ff.  The  Pesikta  Rabbathi  in  Yalkiit 
Shimeoni,  ii.  fol.  129,  col.  4,  thus  explains  the  day  here  alluded  to  : 
"As  we  have  every  seventh  year  a  year  of  release,  so  God  will 
give  the  Israehtes  a  day  of  release,  which  shall  last  a  thousand  years, 
as  it  is  written,  '  and  it  will  be  one  day  of  the  Lord,'  that  day  is  the 
seventh,"  i.e.,  the  seventh  period  of  a  thousand  years.  This  exegesis 
of  the  passage  does  not,  however,  agree  with  the  context. 


59<5  ZECIIARIAIl   AND    HIS   PROrilECIES.      [Ch.  xiv.  7-9. 

The  Pesikta  RahbatJii,  however,  explains  correctly  the  evening 
here  spoken  of  as  signifying  the  Messianic  age.  Similarly  Pirke 
Eliczer,  c.  28,  "  before  the  great  evening  will  break  in,  the  Son  of 
David  will  double  the  light  of  Israel,  as  it  is  written,  'at  evening  it 
will  be  light.'  "  ^ 

8.  'npn  DTl'^X.  LXX.,  £ts  rrjv  OdXao-a-av  tyjv  Trpiiyrrjv  .  .  .  Koi 
T^v  $.  T^v  icrxaTTjv.     So  also  they  render  the  words  in  Joel  ii.  20. 

^ITinn-"!.  LXX.,  iv  eapi,  as  in  other  places.  The  suggestion  of 
Michaelis  is  probably  correct,  that  they  render  thus  from  an  Egyp- 
tian standpoint,  as  winter  is  the  season  of  spring  in  Egypt  (see 
Schleusner's  Lex.). 

9.  The  Synagogue  understood  the  Messianic  dispensation  to  be 
signified  by  "  in  this  day."  In  Sohar  on  Genes,  fol.  22,  col.  85,  and 
fol.  37,  col.  145,  we  read,  "  After  the  destruction  of  the  temple  follows 
that  period  which  is  termed  "TiXT  K3Dn,  the  time  to  co7ne.'"  And  in 
the  cabbalistic  commentary  on  the  Thora  it  is  said  that  "  When  the 
Matron  will  again  return  to  her  Lord  in  that  time  will  the  Lord 
be  one."  The  Matron  (^^n''J1")P0)  which  sometimes  appears  to  be 
used  for  the  Shekinah,  seems  almost  at  other  times  to  indicate  the 
Church  of  Israel.  Thus,  in  a  passage  from  Shir  ha-shir'un  Rabha, 
fol.  7,  col.  3,  quoted  from  Schottgen  by  Dr.  Pusey,  in  his  note  on 
Zech.  9,  there  occurs  this  explanation  of  Cant.  i.  4,  "let  us  exult 
and  rejoice  in  thee  "  :  "  The  Matrona  is  like  a  royal  bride,  whose 
husband  the  king,  her  sons  and  sons-in-law,  Avere  gone  beyond 
sea.  When  they  brought  her  word  that  her  sons  were  returned,  she 
said,  '  What  cause  of  joy  have  I  ?  Let  my  daughters-in-law  re- 
joice !'  Another  messenger  came  that  her  sons-in-law  were  returned. 
She  answered,  '  What  cause  of  joy  have  I  ?  Let  my  daughters 
rejoice  ! '  But  when  they  told  her  that  the  king  her  husband  was 
returned,  she  said,  'This  is  perfect  joy,  a  joy  above  all  joys  !'  So 
also  in  the  time  to  come,  the  time  of  the  Messiah,  the  prophets 
shall  come  to  Jerusalem,  and  say  (Isa.  Ix.  4),  '  Thy  sons  shall 
come  from  far  ;'  she  will  answer,  'What  cause  of  joy  have  I?'  The 
prophets  will  add,  '  thy  daughters  will  be  nurtured  by  thy  side.'  She 
will  answer  in  the  like  way.  But  when  they  shall  say  to  her,  *  Be- 
hold, thy  king  cometh  unto  thee,  just  and  a  Saviour,'  then  she  shall 
say,  'This  is  perfect  joy;'  as  in,  'Exult  greatly,  daughter  of  Zion,' 
and  elsewhere,  '  Sing  and  rejoice,  O  daughter  of  Zion.'  Then  shall 
she  say,  '  I  will  rejoice  greatly  in  the  Lord,  my  soul  shall  be  joyful 
in  my  God'  (Isa.  Ixi.  10)." 


Ch.  xiv.  10-12.]  CRITICAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL   COMM.  597 

10.  "IJI  313.'' •  On  the  form  of  the  verb,  see  note  on  p.  490,  and 
Kalisch  §  Ixii,  3,  b.  The  LXX.  consider  Jahaveh  to  be  the  subject  of 
this  verb,  and  render,  very  unhitelligibly,  kukAwv  ij-aa-av  ttjv  yrjv  koI  ti^v 
^prf/xov  diro  Tafik  ecos  'Vifxix-iav  Kara  votov  'lepovcraX-qix.  Similarly  the 
Syr.,  '■'■  and  he  shall  sicrround the  whole  earth  as  a plain.^''  The  Targ.  is 
"131  XTi,*"'n?  SU"1X  73  nSi^.''j  "  and  the  whole  earth  shall  be  surrounded  as 
the  valley  from  Geba,  etc!^  Vulg.,  erroneously,  "  et  revertetur  omnis 
terra  usque  ad  desertum,  de  colle  Reramon  ad  austrum  Jerusalem." 
See  also  note  i  on  p.  491,  and  on  p.  Ixxiv. 

'1J1  '"'D^^^1_J  for  nD^I..  See  note  2  on  p.  492.  The  V'y  verb  is  treated 
as  if  ^"y.  Comp.  QXpl,  Hos.  x.  14,  and  so  one  of  Baer's  MSS. 
noxni.,  and  Moses  the  Punctator  with  Ben  Naphtali.  The  LXX. 
take  '1  as  a  proper  name,  omitting  the  copula,  'Pa/xa  Se  cVt  toVou 
juevet.  The  proper  name,  however,  is  nO"),  The  verb  seems  to  be 
peculiarly  inflected  in  order  to  avoid  the  confusion  between  the  two 
words.  The  Syr.  correctly  regards  it  as  a  verb.  The  Targ.  explains 
nnpx?  n'-nni  ''^irini.,  '<■  and  it  shall  be  exalted  and  inhabited  in  its 
place." 

'3  "lyti'P?.  See  p.  494.  The  compound  |P/  is  to  be  regarded  as  a 
mere  strengthening  of  JP,  not,  however,  as  identical  with  *?  IP,  with 
Gesenius  in  Thesaurus,  p.  807.  The  ^  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  ? 
indicating  direction,  though  it  is  untranslatable  in  most  cases.  See 
Miihlau  and  Volck's  edition  of  Gesenius'  Wortcrb.  ;  Kohler,  Comm. 
on  Haggai,  pp.  lor,  fF;  Ewald  §  218,  ^. 

JID'Sin  ~\W,  Comp.  for  const,  of  article,  chap.  iv.  7.  See  Ges. 
§  III,  2,  a;  Ewald  §  293,  a. 

'n  buai,  for  715PP-1,  the  IP  being  probably  omitted  for  euphony. 
Many  MSS.  have  the  fuller  reading. 

11.  Q"^n.  So  Baer  correctly,  instead  of  D"?.i!''.,  as  in  the  usual 
text  (comp.  Ewald  §  146,  b,  footnote  2,  p.  379)-  Another  read- 
ing 3"iri1.  is  found  in  some  MSS.  The  Targ.  is  said  to  have  had 
that  reading,  but  this  cannot  be  fairly  deduced  from  its  rendering, 
niy  "in^  X?  xbpi?,  ^^  there  will  no  slaying  any  more."  On  the  expres- 
sion, see  pp.  497  ff. 

12.  ppn.  Inf.  absol.  of  ?'?'^.  See  note  2,  p.  499.  njjppn 
Third  pers.  pi.  niphal  of  ?\>'>^,  instead  of  ^?^'?.PJil,  with  the  dropping 
of  the  inserted  ""t,  and  the  omission  of  the  daghesh  in  the  P.  Comp. 
njpV^,  kal  intrans.,  Jer  xix.  3.    See  Ewald  §  197,  <z ;  Kalisch  §  Ixii.  2,  c. 


598  ZECHARIAII   AND   IIIS   PROniECIES.    [Ch.  xiv.  12-20. 

"rbv  ncr  Nim.  "j4s  he  is  statidifig  vpon  his  feet."  The  sentence 
is  a  dependent  one,  indicating  the  position  during  which  the  plague 
falls  upon  the  man  (see  Ewald  §  341,  a). 

13.  '^TlD^nD.      ^^  A  confusion  from  Jahaveh."  LXX.,  tKo-Tacris,  and 

so  Symm.  and  Aquila,     Similarly  Syr.,  jZoioZ. 

'1i1  \y  nnbyi.  See  note  2  on  p.  500.  LXX.,  koX  o-vfjLTrXaKrja-eTat  r) 
)(€ip  avTov  Trpos  rrjv  X^^P"-  x-'''-^-  Targ.,  "^^T!?r'7  ^"J?  DU  Hn*  tivJ^ni.^ 
"  and  his  hand  shall  struggle  with  the  hand  of  his  neighbour."  In- 
stead of  1^  ^'^,  many  MSB.  have  1^3  B'^t^. 

14.  ^E?:^1..  LXX.  point  this  word  actively,  koX  avvdiei  (^Pv?"!.), 
and  refer  it  to  Judah,  "  and  he  shall  collect  the  strength,  etc."  The 
Targ.,  as  in  chap.  xii.  2,  and  translate  :  T?  N*0??r  l-1Mri::  nn'ir^]  n*31  tlN} 
D.^^'n-a  Nn-ip  N^5^?'?  pp''3^?,  "and  even  those  of  the  house  of  Judah 
shall  the  peoples  bring  by  the  hand  (qu.  11?  ?)  of  violent  men,  to 
wage  war  in  Jerusalem."  The  Lond.  Polygl.  reads,  ]V^^  "i?.  Levy 
(Chald.  Worterb.)  reads  (tanquam  coacti)  TP''^^  "^5,  and  renders,"  vio- 
Icjitly"  "  by  force."    See  on  the  first  clause  of  this  verse,  note  on  p.  501. 

1 5-  I~i5-  Generally  the  order  is  |?~|.  Comp.  Ps.  cxxvii.  4; 
Joel  ii.  4  (Kohlcr).  ri\"l''  'S  'arr^DI.  The  agreement  of  the  predi- 
cate with  73  is  rare  (see  Ewald  §  317,  c).  Some  MSS.  have,  how- 
ever, nsin,  which  seems  to  be  a  correction. 

16.  On  *"10  see  the  note  on  p.  505.     See  also  the  note  on  p.  504. 

17.  "And  upon  them  shall  be  no  rain."  See  note  on  p.  508. 
On  the  construction  of  the  apodosis  with  1.,  compare  Exod.  ix.  21. 

18.  Though  the  participle  nX2  N71.  has  been  explained  by  Ewald 
in  his  Proph.  der  A.  B.  vol.  ii.  p.  63,  as  given  in  the  note  on  p.  507, 
Prof.  Delitzsch  considers  that  the  participle  in  this  passage  cannot 
be  defended  on  the  principles  of  syntax.  The  conjecture  of  von 
Hofmann  in  his  Schriftbeweis  is  ingenious,  namely,  that  the  text 
ought  to  be  read  '"i?^^"!  or  even  '"'?i^?1,  pual  (comp.  Hosea  xiii.  5), 
"then  it  (Egypt)  will  thirst"  or  be  deprived  of  the  necessary  rain. 

20.     r\'O^-0-hl\     See  note  on  p.  511. 

r\'\T\'h  L'np.     The  LXX.  add  niNnv  as  in  verse  21. 


INDEX    OF    TEXTS, 


ILLUSTRATED   AND   NOT   MERELY  REFERRED   TO. 


OLD     TESTAMENT. 


Genesis. 


IV.  10      . 
iv.  i6 

X.   JO,   II. 


Exodus. 


xii.  15,  19 
xix.  6    . 


Deuteronomy. 


vii.  23    , 
xiii.  i-io 
,,   14-16 
xviii.  19-22 
xxviii.  65 
xxxiv.  6 


Judges. 


I  Samuel. 


1.9. 

iv.  13,  \\ 

xiv.  20  . 
xvii.  47 


xv.IO-13 


I  Kings. 


Ezra. 


PAGE 

xix. 
118 
136 


462 
464 


499 
417 
497 
418 
292 
58 


503 


152 
152 
500 
.^68 


318,  319,320 


280,  ff. 


Nehemiah. 

PAGE 

vii. 

279,    ff. 

xiii.  16,  20 

Job. 

515.    516 

vi.  16-18 

Psalms. 

.              487 

xii.  4 

118 

xxii.  8 

234 

xlvi.  5  (4) 

•              487 

„     9     • 

240 

lii.  10  (8) 

8 

Ixviii.  27 

28 

Ixxvi.  10 

•        348 

xcii.  13,  14 

8 

ci.  8 

462 

ex. 

155 

cxxvi.  1-4 

193 

Proverbs. 

XXX.,  xxxi. 

Isaiah. 

202 

ii.  II-19 

457 

,,  17        • 

517 

iv.  3.  4   • 

464 

viii.  18    . 

69 

xi.  I. 

149 

xiv.  8      . 

301 

xxvi.  9     . 

• 

503 

6oo 


INDEX   OF   TEXTS. 


Isaiah. 


Daniel. 


PAGE 

PAGE 

xxvi.  20,  21 

465 

ii-  31-35 

•  17, 131 

xxviii.  15-18 

324 

vil.  7,  19,  23 

351 

xxix.  1-6 

469.    ff. 

„    12     . 

33 

XXX.  30,  31 

499 

viii. 

132 

„     25  . 

488 

ix.  2 

22 

„     17.  18 
xxxi.  9    . 

457 
126 

HOSEA. 

xxxvii.  24 

301 

xi.  5 

292 

,.       36 

499 

xiii.  14    . 

•         .. 

xl.  I,  3,  4 
xlv.  15    . 

96 
466 

Joel. 

liii. 

387, 

434.  437 

iv.  2,  16. 

126,472 

lix.  19     . 
Ixv.  20    . 

295 
180 

Amos. 

Ixvi.  21    . 

92,  180 

vii.  14,  15 

.  424,  ff. 

„     23   . 

507 

iii.  2 

457 

Jeremiah. 

viii.  9 

4S6 

xviii.  2     . 

332,  ff. 

Micah. 

xix.  2 

•  332,  ff. 

V.  9-I1  . 

, 

241 

li.  25 

473 

Haggal 

EZEKIEL. 

ii.3 

. 

100 

ix.  6 

457 

ii.  7 

.    20,  89 

XXXV.  7   . 
xlv.  3 

176 
514 

Malachi. 

xliii.  I,  2 

5^4 

1.  II 

94 

xlvii.  I- 1 2 

.        487 

iii.  1-4    . 

45 

,,    21,22 

188 

i.  I 

XXX.,  355 

APOCRYPHA. 


xiii.  29,  50 


I    ESDRAS. 


2   ESDRAS. 


TOBIT. 


279 


281 


xiv.  8-12 


'i-  4,  5 
xiv.  4-9 


I  Maccabees. 


2  Maccabees. 


iSi 


124 
531 


INDEX   OF   TEXTS. 


60 1 


NEW    TESTAMENT. 


Matthew 


V.  21 

V.  34  • 
X.  41,  42 
xii.  15,  20 

M  32  . 

xiii.  41  . 

xvii.  20  . 

xix.  28  . 
xxi.  2 

xxi.  21  . 
xxiii.  35 

xxiv.  3  . 

,.    34 
xxvii.  9,  10 
xxviii.  16-19 


vi.  5,  6   . 

xiii.  8,  ff . 

„     32   • 


i.  78        . 
vii.  31,  32 
xi.  24-26 
xvi.  II 
xxi.  10,  12 


1.  5 

iii.  16,  17 

V.  43 
vi.  38 
xi.  48 
xvi.  7 
xix.  37 


339 
109 

156 
237 
449 
120 
96 

454 
236 

96 

xvui.  xix. 

449 

445 

333.  335.  342,  ff-,  583 
445 

Mark. 

437 
522 

.         .        .        485 


Luke. 


John. 


546 
340 
417.437 
115 
522 


486 

155 

350 
155 
350 
444 
386,  ff 


Acts. 


PAGE 

i.  6 

. 

170 

ii.  39       . 

Romans. 

157 

viii.  21     . 

488 

X.  2 

418 

xi.  2-12   . 

521,   522 

..7 

.              518 

„  17.24 

•  93.  195 

,,  25,  26 

519 

xii.  5       . 

463 

IV.  4 

V.  16 


"•  13,  17 


ii.5. 
,,i6 

vi.  5 
ix.  I 

,,  26 


a.  13 


IV.  17 


I  Corinthians. 


2  Corinthians. 


Ephesians. 


Hebrews. 


James. 


I  Peter. 


96 


519 

444 


157 


450 
77 

450 
88 

450 


522 


457 


602 


INDEX   OF   TEXTS. 


11.  19 


9 
19 


1.  20 
ii.  17 


I  John. 


JUDE. 


Revelation. 


Revelation. 


PAGB      I 

119 


21,  S3,fr. 
119 


85 
9 


vi.  i-S     . 
xi.  2 
„  4 

M      13  • 

„      19  ■ 

xvi.  14 
xix.  II,  14 

XX.    . 

xxi,  23      . 
.,    27      . 


rAGK 

13. 133.  ff- 
464 

93 

463 

9 

417 

13 
459 

40 
462 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


The  critics  specially  mentioned  in  the  Introduction  §  8,  as  frequently  referred 
to  in  this  work,  are  noted  in  this  Index  by  the  word  "  passim." 


Abarbanel,  xvii.,  xxi.,  Ixii.,  27,  504. 

Abassi,  Joseph,  204. 

Abu'l-walid,  532. 

Aben  Ezra,  see  Ibn  Ezra. 

Adonis,  the  mourning  for,  392. 

Adversary,  the,  46. 

Alford,  Dean,  57. 

Alexander    the   Great — destruction    of 

Tyre,  212  ;  destraclion  of  Gaza,  214, ff; 

visit  to  Jerusalem,  224 ;  favour  shown 

to  the  Jews  by,  226. 
Allegory  of  the  shepherd  and  the  sheep, 

338. 

Angel  that  talked  with  me,  12  ;  Angel 
of  Jahaveh,  11,  21;  intercession  of, 
21,  23;  answer  of  Jahaveh  to,  23; 
adjuration  of  Joshua  by,  64  ;  not  the 
Pierced  One,  386 ;  the  high  priest 
before,  46,  ff. 

Angelic  riders,  vision  of  the,  11,  ff; 
their  report  respecting  the  Gentile 
world,  20. 

Anglo-Saxon  race  not  Israelitish,  2S2. 

Animals,  plague  of  the,  502. 

Annals,  blank  in  Jewish,  257. 

Annius,  373. 

Antichrist,  not  depicted  in  the  sixth 
vision,  120;  kingdom  of,  not  the 
strongest,  132 ;  not  spoken  of  in 
Isa.  xiv.  8,  301  ;  false  views  of,  521. 

Antiochus  Epiphanes,   316,   317,    420, 

436- 
ApoUinaris,  53. 


Apostasy,  supposed  reference  to  future, 

415.  438- 

Apostumus,  163. 

Apostolical  Coftstituiioiis,  xxiv. 

Arabah,  the,  491. 

Ariel,  469. 

Aristeas,  36,  538,  539. 

Arnheim,  xl.,  passim. 

Arrian,  Exped.  Alex.,  215,  216. 

Asceticism,  Jewish,  423. 

Ashdod,  bastard  or  rabble  in,  216. 

Ashkelon,  judgment  on,  213,  568. 

Ass,  the  riding  on  an,  236 ;  not  neces- 
sarily a  sign  of  humility,  237,  ff. 

Assyria  and  Egypt,  291  ;  the  king  of 
Assyria  styled  kmg  of  Babylon,  290. 

Assyrian  inscriptions,  205,  220,  228 ; 
eponyms,  205  ;  months,  528. 

Assiiinption  of  Moses,  53,  ff. 

Aih's.\\?LS\Vi%,  Synopsis  Saitct.  Script.,  54. 

Atonement,  Day  of,  festal  close  of,  77. 

Augustine,  255. 

Azal,  476,  ff. 

Babylon,  command  to  flee  out  of,  37  ; 
judgments  on,  38,  39  ;  the  deputa- 
tion from,  145 ;  reception  of  gifts 
from  the  exiles  in,  146  ;  names  of  the 
deputation,  156. 

Bacher,  Agada,  549. 

Bacchides,  469. 

Baer,  xlvii. ,  passim  ;  on  metheg,  xlviii. , 
545'  594  ;  crit.  tdS-ixonoiPsalta;  593. 


6o4 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


Baptism  referred  to,  412. 

Bar-Kokhab,  164,  442,  476. 

Batis,  215. 

Baudissin,  Prof,  von,    xlvi.,   392,  393, 

394.  395- 
Bauer,  G.  L.,  xxvi.,  xHL,  passim. 
Baumgarten,  xlii. ;  on  the  contest  about 

the  burial  of  Moses,  58. 
Beauty  of  Israel,  261. 
Bede,  57. 
Behistun,  inscription  on  the  Rock  of, 

38,  39,  291. 
Benjamin,  Gate  of,  494. 
Bereshith  Rabba,  549,  570. 
Bertheau,  280,  362,  395. 
Bertholdt,  xxvi.,  496,  509. 
Bethel,  deputation  from,  166,  ff;  ques- 
tion put  by,  169;  answer  of  Jahaveh, 

170;  Bethel  and  the  Bethelites,  167. 
Bether,  storming  of,  164. 
Blank  in  Jewish  annals,  the,  257. 
Blayney,  xxvi.,  xlii.,  Ixv.,  538,  55?,  569, 

580. 
Bleek,  xv.,  xxxviii. ,  xlii.,  passim. 
Blood  taken  away  from  the  mouth,  218; 

of  the  covenant,  249,  250. 
Bochart,  128. 
Bohl,  Forschtmgeitnacheiner  Volksbibcl, 

336 ;  Alt.  Test.  Citate  im  N.  T.,  336, 

390,  570.  592- 
Bosanquet,  S.  R.,  Prophecies  of  Zccha- 

riah,  31,  90. 
Bottcher,   xliii.,  Ausf.  Lchrbiich.,  xlvii  , 

passim. 
Bowl  of  reeling,  361. 
Boys  and  girls  in  the  streets,  181. 
Branch,  the,  70,  fif,  149,  546. 
Brass,  mountains  of,  123. 
Brcviarhim  of  the  Pseudo-Philo,  372. 
Brotlierhood  broken  up  between  Israel 

and  Judah,  343  ;  opinion  of  modern 

critics,  ?V/.,  the  fulfdment,  345. 
Briick,  Pharis.   Volksitten,  etc.,  191. 
Brunet,  373. 
Bunsen,  xli.,  passim.     Aitalccta   Antc- 

Nicana,  xxv. 
Bunyan,  John,  xxviii. 
"  Burden  "  and  oracle,  202. 
Burger,  xliv.,415,  52S,  578,  588. 


Buxtorf,  Lex.  I/eb.,  574;  Tiberias,  xvii. ; 

Lexicon  Chald.  and  Tahn. ,  passim. 
Cadytis,  36. 
Calmet,  357,  505. 
Calvin,  xli.,   234,  235,    313,   361,  452, 

483,  501- 

Canaanite  no  longer  in  temple,  515,  ff. 

Candlestick,  vision  of  the  golden,  81  ; 
constructed  on  the  basis  of  the  candle- 
stick of  the  tabernacle,  81,  85,  87  ; 
c.  in  the  temple,  82,  85,  87 ;  c.  on 
the  Arch  of  Titus,  83 ;  differences  be- 
tween c.  of  tabernacle  and  that  seen 
in  the  vision,  83,  88  ;  bowl  of  the, 
83 ;  pipes  of  the,  83,  84,  85,  548,  552  ; 
peculiarities  of  the  c.  of  the  vision, 
88  ;  meaning  of,  87,  88. 

Cappellus,  xliii.,  l.xv.,  55,  357,  505,  575. 

■'  Captivity,"  the,  145  ;  causes  of  the, 
269,  ff. 

Ceremonial  law,  abolition  of  the,  512, 

514. 

Ceriani,  54. 

Chamberlain,  Rev.  Walter,  mistake  as 
to  chap.  ix.  I,  2, p.  209  ;  on  Ashkelon, 
214,  567  ;  view  of  the  war  with 
Greece,  257  ;  depreciation  of  the 
Maccabees,  257  ;  on  Zech.  x.  4,  5,  p. 

275- 

Chambers,  Dr.  Talbot,  xli.,  24,  173, 
176,  380,  493. 

Chariots,  vision  of  the  four,  123  ;  the 
chariots  compared  to  winds,  127;  not 
to  be  identified  with  the  winds,  137  ; 
the  horses  in  the,  127  (sec /lorses) ;  the 
four  empires  of  Daniel,  130,  135 ; 
other  views,  130,  ff. 

Christ  (see  Afessiah),  entry  into  Jerusa- 
lem, 239  ;  advent  in  humility,  239 ;  as 
the  shepherd,  and  his  rejection,   339. 

Chrysostom,  xviii. 

Chwolson,  Die  Ssabier,  268,414  ;  Ilebr. 
Grab-iuschrificn,  285  ;  MiJt/icilung 
Zeitschrift  D.  M.  C,  2S5. 

City,  see  cutting  off. 

Clarke,  Dr.  Adam,  541. 

Cleansing  of  the  land,  iio. 

Clermont-Ganncau,  267,  414,  476. 

Cocceius,  31,  346,  4S4. 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


605 


Colours  of  the  horses  used  to  mark  the 
three  divisions  of  the  riders,  12,  20; 
supposed  to  be  symbohcal  by  Keil, 
14;  by  Kohler,  15;  by  Ewald,  etc., 
16  ;  of  the  horses  of  the  four  chariots, 
130  ;  of  no  symboUcal  significance 
in  Zechariah,  18-20,  135,  531,  ff; 
the  colours  employed  not  those  men- 
tioned in  the  Revelation,  133,   134, 

531,  ff- 

Commerce,  the  sins  of,  109. 

Composition  of  chap.  vii.  and  viii,  161 ; 
of  the  second  portion  of  Zechariah, 
199,  XXV.,  ff,  xxviii.,  ff. 

Conder,  Lieut.  Claude,  394,  476,  496. 

Conditional  nature  of  promises,  the,  179. 

Confusion  and  panic,  499,  500. 

Consecration  to  destruction,  497. 

Copper,  see  brass. 

Corner  gate,  the,  495. 

Comer  stone,  the,  97. 

Counsel  of  peace,  153-155. 

Corruption,  the  mount  of,  see  Olives. 

Covenant,  blood  of  the,  249,  250 ; 
with  the  nations  dissolved,  322,  324. 

Credner,  254. 

Crown  of  silver  and  gold  made  by 
Zechariah,  146 ;  one  crown  only, 
147  ;  deposited  in  temple,  155. 

Crucifixion  of  our  Lord,  387,  438  ;  ne- 
cessity of,  444. 

Curse,  the,  and  its  size,  105,  ff;  abol- 
ished, 496. 

Curtiss,  Levitical  Priests,  20,  92. 

Curtius,  Quintus,  213,513. 

Cutting  off  from  the  city,  the,  461,  ff; 
518,  ff. 

Cyrill,  93,  204,  214,  357,  453,  460, 
465,  476,  505,  509,  527,  545,  547. 

Cyrus,  called  "my  shepherd,"  435. 

Damascus,  201,  228. 

Dan,     tribe    of,     communication    with 

Greece,  254. 
Daniel's  four   empires   represented    by 

the  four  chariots,  130,  135. 
Darkness,  day  of,  480,  ff. 
Darius  Hystaspis,  525  ;  Ochus,  525. 
Dathe,  xliii.,  passim 


David,  body-guard  of,  254  ;  house  of, 
xxx.,  xxxiv.,  371  ;  titular  princes  of, 
372  ;  remarkable  allusion  of  Zech.  to, 
372 ;  an  indication  of  post-exilian 
authorship,  374;  story  of  the  last 
known  descendants  of,  404. 

Davidson,  Dr.  Samuel,  xxix.,  xxx., 
xxxii.,  xxxviii.,  xliii.,  xlvi.,lxii.,  Ixxv. 

318.  337- 

Davison,  on  Prophecy,  xlvi. 

Day,  meaning  of  the  phrase  "in  that," 
412,  596 ;  of  darkness,  480 ;  or 
period,  413;  "one  day,"  483; 
known  to  Jahaveh,  484;  not  day 
nor  night,  485,  521  ;  day  of  blessing, 
4S8,  521. 

DelitzschjDr.  Franz,  xliii.,  xlvii.,lxxiv., 
533'  582,  593"  598  ;  Comm.  on  Haba- 
kkuk,  542  ;  Psychology,  74 ;  Preface 
to  Curtiss"  Levitical  Priests,  20 ; 
Article  on  Dekalog,  z'j'j ;  Farben- 
Studien,  20 :  Die  Farben,  u,  d.  Tal- 
mud, ^T,\  ;  Comm.  iiber  Genesis,  21, 
22,  175,  26S,  278,  568;  Cotnin.  iiber 
die  Psalmen,  28,  248,  540,  584,  591 ; 
Comm.  iiber  Jcsaia,  "j^,  92,  278,  569. 
Talmud.  Studien,  399.  On  Psalter  of 
Solomon,  582. 

Delitzsch,  Dr.  Friedrich,  Chald.  Gene- 
sis, 393. 

Didymus  of  Alexandria,  53. 

de  Dieu,  L.,  481. 

Diodorus  Siculus,  215. 

Dion  Cassius,  476. 

Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  215. 

Dispensation,  the  New,  "the  world  to 
come,"  449. 

Diviners,  268. 

Dorotheus,  xvii. 

Drake,  xliii.,  passim. 

Driver's  Hebrew  Tenses,  xlvii.,  passim. 

Drummond's  Jewish  Messiah,  xlvi., 
5S>  328,  391. 

Duhm,  xlii.,  554. 

Earnestness  among  the  returned  Jews, 

I  So. 
Earthquake,  on  Mount  of  Olives,  469, 

471;  in   reign   of  Uzziah,    477,    ff; 


6o6 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


earthquakes  accompaniments  of 
Divine  manifestations,  48,  ff. 

Ebrard,  xxvii.,  344,  378,  439. 

Egypt,  a  general  place  of  refuge,  292  ; 
mention  of  in  chap,  x.,  295  ;  in 
chap,  xiv.,    507,   ff;  the  temple  in, 

509- 
Eichhom,  xxvi.,  248. 
Ekron  as  the  Jebusite,  218. 
Elijah,  423. 

Elxai,  Libn.fragm.,  124. 
Ephah,   vision  of  the,    1 1 1 ;  woman  in 

the,  112. 
Ephraim,   gate  of,  494 ;  Ephraim  and 

Judah  partakers   in  the   Maccabean 

struggle,  276,  ff. 
Epiphanius,    124 ;  notices  of  Zech.  by 

•  the  pseudo-E.,  xvii. ,  xviii.,  xx. 
Eusebius,  54,  404,  460. 
Eventide,  light  at,  486. 
Exhortations,   fruitlessness   of    former, 

173. 
Exiles,  the  lists  of  returned,  279. 
Ewald,    xliii.,    passim;    Ajisf.   Lehrb. 

passim  ;  Dichter  des  A.  Bundcs,  28  ; 

History  of  Israel,    254,   281,    320, 

395.  5^1- 

Fabricii,  Bibl.  Grceca,  373. 

Farrar's  Life  of  Christ,  239. 

Fasting  for  national  calamities,  days  of, 
163,  ff ;  duty  of  the  people  as  regards, 
172. 

Fasts  and  feasts  in  God's  sight,  171  ; 
Jewish  tradition  respecting  the  aboli- 
tion of,  191. 

Feeding  the  flock,  meaning  of,  305. 

Fellow,  my,  meaning  of  the  term,  435. 

Field's  edition  of  Origen^s  Hexapla, 
xlviii. ,  passim. 

Filthy  garments,  48,  ff ,  544. 

Finn's  Orphan  Colony  of  Jews  in  China, 
282. 

Fire,  brand  plucked  from  the,  51,  ff. 

Fleischer,  172,  542. 

Flight  into  the  valley,  the,  473,  ff. 

Fliigge,  xxvi.,  207,  578. 

Forberg,  xxvi. ,  233. 

Fountain  opened,  409  ;  closed,  411. 


Four,  significance  of  the  number,  137. 

Friedlieb,  Oracitla  Sibyllina,  543. 

Fritzsche,  Libri  Apoc.  V.  T.,  53,  54, 
328  ;  Hatidbuch  z.  d.  Apoc,  280,  324. 

Fiirst,  Julius,  xliii.;  Concord,  passim; 
Heb.  und  Chald.  Wortcrbiich,  pas- 
sim;  Kanon  des  A,  T.,  xvii.,  xxiii., 
529 ;  Geschiehte  dtr  bibl.  Lit.  xxiii., 
581. 

Gains,  The  New  Testament,  156, 

Gaza,  overthrow  of,  214;  ruled  over 
by  a  titular  king,  215. 

V.  Gebhart,  582. 

Geiger,  Abraham,  Urschriff,  xxvi.,  xliii., 
362,  402,  541,  568,  581,  587. 

Geiger,  E.  E.,  der Psalter Salomd's,  582. 

Geviara,  389,  390,  481,  see  Talmud. 

Genealogical  registers,  244;  fragmen- 
tary character  of,  283,  ff. 

Gentiles,  the  sin  of,  against  Israel,  25  ; 
conversion  of  the,  39,  40,  192  ;  wor- 
shippers of  Jahaveh,  503  ;  keeping 
the  feasts,  194  ;  pilgrimages  of,  to 
Jerusalem,  505,  506 ;  believing  G. 
and  Jews  the  olive  branches,  93 ; 
punishment  of  the,  308 ;  strangers 
from,  156  ;  mixed  with  Jews,  220, 
245  ;  often  became  Jews,  188  ;  to 
have  equal  rights  in  the  land  of 
Palestine  in  the  future,  188. 

Gesenius,  Grammar,  xlvii.,  passim  ; 
Lchrgebiiiide,  xlvii.,  passim;  IJeb.- 
Chald.  IVorterbitck,  xlvi.,  passim; 
Thesaurus,  xlvi.,  passim. 

Ghillany,  Menschenopfer  der  alt.  Ile- 
hrder,  259. 

Ghor,  the,  491,  ff. 

Gilead  and  Lebanon,  293. 

Ginsburg,  xlvii.,  Hi.; 

Glaucus,  story  of,  no. 

Gog  and  Magog,  3S9,  391,  451. 

Grant's,  Nestorians  and  Lost  Tribes,  285, 

Graetz,  328,  375,  47S. 

Greece,  war  of  the  sons  of  Zion  against 
the  sons  of,  253,  312  ;  Jewish  inter- 
pretation of,  xxiii.;  intercourse  with, 
254  ;  known  to  Jews  after  the  burning 
of  Sardis,  255. 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


607 


Greek  culture  and  Jewish  religion,  254, 
255  ;  Greek  kings  and  Greek  soldiers, 
255,  257.  573- 

Hadadrimmon,  mourning  of,  391,  ff. 

Hadar-Ramman,  393. 

Hadrach,  land  of,  202  ;  different  views, 

mistakes      concerning,     203  ;     name 

found  in  the   Assyrian   inscriptions, 

205,  565. 
Haggai's   sermon   to   the  Jews,    effect 

of,  3. 
Hairy  garment,  422. 
Half  of  the  remnant,  460. 
Hamath,  209,  228. 
Hananeel,  Tower  of,  494. 
Hananiah,    Mishael  and   Azariah,    51, 

530,  545,  546,  559- 
Hardness  of  heart,  result  of,  176, 
Harkary's  Catalog,  285. 
Hariri,  532. 
Havercamp,  531,  539. 
Havemick,  xxvii.,  xxx.,  xliii. 
Hecat£Eus,  539. 
Hegesias,  215. 
Hegesippus,  404. 
He-goats,  270. 

Heidenheim,  Ascensio  Moysis,  57,  534. 
Henderson,  xliv.,  passim. 
Hengstenberg,  xliv.,  passim. 
Herodotus,  36,  39,  no,  200,  215,  291, 

395- 

Hervey,  Lord  Arthur  (Bishop  of  Bath 
and  Wells),  on  the  Genealogies  o/mir 
Lord,  225,  401. 

Herzfeld,  372,  373. 

Herzog's  Real-encyclopddie,  277. 

Herxheimer,  236. 

Hesselberg,  361,  505,  535,  590. 

Hesychius,  xvii. 

Hezekiah,  victories  over  the  Philis- 
tines, 230;  entry  into  Jerusalem, 
233  ;  waterworks  of,  412. 

Hezel,  211,  401,  477,  506. 

High  priest  before  the  Angel  of  Jaha- 
veh,  46,  ff ;  engaged  in  some  sacer- 
dotal duty,  47  ;  his  filthy  garments, 
50,  ff,  544;  Ewald's  view,  48 ;  gar- 
ments removed,   60  ff;  mitre  of,  61, 


ff ;  to  judge  the  Lord's  house,  65,  ff ; 
cro\vned  by  Zechariah,  148  ;  the 
priest  upon  his  throne,  151,  ff. 

Hildesheimer,  539. 

Hilgenfeld,  582;  Nov.  Test.  extr.  Can. 
recept.,  54,  55  ;  Elxai  Lib.  fragm. 
124. 

Hitzig,  xxvi.,  xliii.,  passim. 

von  Hofmann,  xliii.,  passim. 

Holy  land,  the,  41  ;  Holy  Place,  see 
Sanctuary  ;  holy  ones,  the,  479,  595. 

Horizon,  the  near  and  the  distant,  in- 
termingled, 451  ;  the  prophetic,  6. 

Horns,  the  four,  26 ;  different  views, 
27 ;  signify  hostile  kingdoms,  but 
not  the  four  kingdoms  of  Daniel,  27 ; 
views  of  Ewald  and  Hitzig,  27  ;  of 
Pressel,  28. 

Horses  in  the  first  vision,  12,  ff ;  of  the 
four  chariots,  127  ;  different  explan- 
ations, 130,  ff ;  their  colours  of  no 
symbolical  significance,  18-20,  135, 
531,  ff ;  used  to  mark  off  the  several 
divisions  of  the  riders,  12,  20;  or  one 
chariot  from  another,  135  ;  speckled 
and  strong,  136;  use  of,  236;  bells 
of  the,  515  ;  plague  on,  502. 

Hudson,  531,  539. 

Human  sacrifices,  259. 

Humble  ones,  the,  440,  592. 

Hupfeld,  248   551. 

Huther,  56,  57. 

Ibn  Ezra,  1S2,  235,  479,  504,  512,  530, 

595- 

Iddo,  XV.,  xvi.,  526, 

Idolatrous  practices  still  found  in  Pales- 
tine, 267. 

Idolatry,  danger  of,  not  past  in  post- 
exilian  days,  267,  413  ;  Jewish 
hatred  against,  437. 

Inspiration,  feeling  of  the  Jews  against 
claims  to,  in  our  Lord's  day,  432. 

Isaac,   Rabbi,   Chizzuk  Emunahy  582, 

587- 

Isidore,  xviii. 

Israel  after  the  flesh  and  after  the  spirit, 
376,  ff ;  the  scattering  of,  445  ;  not 
blinded  more  than  the  Gentiles,  518  ; 


6o8 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


a  blessing  and  a  curse,  187  ;  devour- 
ing as  a  lion,   258 ;    beauty  and  in- 
crease of,  261. 
Israelites,  see  under  yews,  Jewish. 

Jahaveh,  pronunciation  of  the  name  ; 
xi.  ;  advent  of,  39  ;  answer  to  depu- 
tation from  Bethel,  170  ff,  190;  re- 
turn to  Zion,  178;  men's  eyes  directed 
towards  J.  by  judgments,  208  ;  camp- 
ing around  his  house,  221  ;  beholding 
oppression,  223 ;  the  shepherd  of 
Israel,  308  ;  sword  of,  434,  437  ;  the 
shepherd  of,  435  ;  the  fellow  of,  435  ; 
turning  back  his  hand,  439  ;  a  day 
of,  455,  457.  516;  fighting  with 
the  nations,  456,  464,  517,  522; 
appearance  on  Mount  of  Olives,  465, 
ff,  472,  519  ;  phenomena  attendant 
on,  468,  ff,  478,  ff ;  a  king,  488  ; 
"  one,  and  his  name  one,"  4S9,  490. 

Javan,  signifies  Greece,  254. 

Jebusites,  218. 

Jehoshaphat,  valley  of,  126. 

Jehudah,  dispute  of  R.  Jose  with  R. ,  204. 

Jerome,  xviii.,  xix.,  xxi.,  130,  337,  346, 

357,  362,  364,   394,  398,  457,  458, 
471,  476,  527,  532,   547,  556,   559, 

561,  595- 

Jerusalem,  captured  three  times  by 
Nebuchadnezzar,  22,  gi'owth  in  post- 
exilian  days,  35,  36,  539 ;  the  spirit- 
ual, 40  ;  a  city  of  tmth,  179  ;  Israel 
to  dwell  in,  184  ;  a  stone  of  burden, 
364-370  ;  attacks  on,  injurious  to  the 
nations,  370 ;  capture  of,  457,  459  ; 
escape  from,  461,  471,  ff,  519;  re- 
generation of  the  world  begins  at, 
487,  521 ;  living  waters  at,  487  ; 
elevation  of  the  city,  493 ;  natural 
situation  of,  494  ;  its  limits,  494  ;  its 
gates,  494,  ff ;  Judah  fighting  at,  500,  ff. 

Jew,  the  taking  hold  of  the  skirt  of  a, 
194  ;  name  of  Jew  applied  to  all  the 
tribes,  189,  246,  2S3,  374  ;  a  name  of 
honour,  246. 

Jews,  a  commercial  people  after  the 
exile,  109  ;  improved  state  of,  after 
the  return,  iSo,  185  ;  depressed  con- 


dition of,  200  ;  honour  bestowed  on, 
195,  289;  called  "children  of  Israel," 
XXX.,  244,  2S3  ;  to  possess  military 
power,  252 ;  war  against  Greeks, 
253,  see  under  Greece,  Greek ;  bles- 
sings derived  from,  289 ;  mercies 
vouchsafed  to,  at  the  restoration,  311. 
Jewish  captives,  sale  of,  232,  252  ;  loss 
of  independence,  241  ;  blank  in 
annals,  257;  superstitions,  414,  ff; 
history  after  the  restoration  up  to  the 
times  of  the  Maccabees,  310. 

John  the  Baptist,  422,  ff. 

Jordan,  the  pride  of,  xxxvi.,  302. 

Josephus,  9,  36,  49,  165,215,  224,  231, 
281,  372,  395,  477,  478,  529,  531, 
538,  595- 

Joshua,  thehigh  priest,  the  representative 
of  Israel,  50,  60  ;  filthy  garments  re- 
moved from,  60,  ff ;  Jewish  legend 
about,  51;  the  crowning  of,  148,  ff  ; 
see  under  Zerubbabel. 

Josiah,  the  mourning  for,  394,  ff. 

Jost,  Gesch.des  Jiid.,  xvii.,  165. 

Judah,  Israel  and  Jerusalem,  28 ;  dif- 
ferent views,  29-31  ;  Kliefoth's  inter- 
pretation, 30  ;  Judah  and  Israel,  40, 
187  ;  J.  the  state-horse  of  Jehovah, 
271  ;  not  opposed  to  Jerusalem,  362, 
364,  378 ;  deliverance  first  given 
to  J.  and  then  to  Israel,  367  ;  and 
Israel,  the  names  of,  355.  See  also 
XXX.,  xxxix. ,  xl. 

Juda;a,  change  in  the  physical  state  of, 
490,  ff. 

Judas  Iscariot,  341. 

Judginent  of  peace,  189. 

Jude,  reference  of,  to  dispute  about  body 
of  Moses,  53,  ff;  no  reference  to 
Assutnptio  Mosis,  56,  57,  59 ;  the 
reference  to  Zechariah,  53,  58. 

Junius,  57  ;  see  Tremelliiis. 

Justin  Martyr,  xxiv.,  338,  443,  570. 

Kalisch,  xlvii.,  passim. 
Kahnis,  386. 

Karaites  of  the  Crimea,  285. 
Kautzsch,  xlvii.,  passim. 
Kcenan,  Thomas  V.,  373. 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


609 


Keil,  xxvii.,  xliv.,  passim. 

Keim,  582. 

Kennicott,  Hebrew  Bible,  passim. 

Kimchi,    Comm.    on    Zechariah,    xliv., 

passim  ,  Michlol,  Iviii.  ,537- 
King,   the   Messiah  a,   233  ;  the   king 

and  priest  of  Ps.  ex.,  148. 
Kliefoth,  xliv.,  passim. 
Knobel,  xv.,  xxvii.,  xliv. 
Kohler,  xviii.,  xx.,  xxi.,  xliv.,  passim. 
Koster,  xxvii.,  xlvi. 
Kuenen,  xxxviii,  xlvi.,  546. 

de  Lagarde,  xlviii. ,  Ivii.,  391,  511,  532, 

549.  554,  555.  558.  573,  577,  59i- 
Lamps,  the  lighting  of  the,  87,  ff. 
'L.?iX\.€'s,  Arabic  English  Lexicon,  61,  532, 

533- 
Land,  wasting  of  the,  177  ;  the  "  land  " 

or  the  "  world,"  307. 
Lange,  J.    P.,    xliv.,    passim  ;    on   S- 

Matthew,  96. 
Lapide,  Corn,  a,  457. 
Lebrecht,  Dr.  F.,  164. 
Lee,     Archdeacon,  Inspiration  of  Holy 

Scripture,  333. 
Lee,  Prof.  Samuel,  Syriac  Bible,  xlviii. 
Levy,    Dr.    M.    A.,    Gesch.    der   Jud. 

Miinzen,  164. 
Levy,  Dr.  J.,  Chaldiiisch.     Worterbuch, 

passim;  Neuheb.undChald.  Worterb., 

passim. 
Light  at  eventide,  486. 
Lightfoot,  xix.,  31,    68,  96,    163,    164, 

238,  338,  393,  467- 
Lion,  Israel  like  a,  258. 
Literal    fulfilment  of  some   prophecies 

impossible,    181,  184,    194,  454,  460, 

507,  510- 
Luthardt,  56. 

Luther,  German  Bible,  passim. 
Lying  and  deceit,  warnings  against,  189. 

Maccabees,  wars  of  the,  255  ;  not  too 
vividly  described  by  the  prophet,  256 ; 
Chamberlain's  attempt  to  depreciate, 
257  ;  their  conflicts  a  war  of  Israel, 
256 ;  mistakes  of,  288  ;  era  after,  a 
period  of  declension,  437  ;   prophecy 


concerning,  369  ;  struggles  of,  370, 
ff  ;  from  Modin  not  Jerusalem,  371  ; 
why  called  princes  of  Judah,  374. 

Madden,  F.  W.,  Jewish  Coinage,  164. 

Maimonides,  71. 

Makrizi,  373. 

Marck,  xxi.,  xliv.,  passim. 

Martini,  385,  549. 

Maurer,  xliv.,  passim. 

McCaul  on  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,  22; 
see  under  Kimchi. 

Measuring  line,  man  with  the,  33  ;  for- 
bidden to  measure  the  city,  34,  35. 

Measure  of  the  sanctuary,  107. 

Mede,  XXV.,  xliv.,  337,  521,  583. 

Megiddo,  565. 

Meier,  E.,386,  586. 

Merx,  393,  Archiv,  xlviii.,  55,  539,  545, 

594- 

Metallic  image,  Nebuchadnezzar's 
dream  of  the,  17,  131. 

Messiah,  as  the.  stone,  73  ;  called  the 
corner  stone,  not  the  top  stone,  97  ; 
to  build  the  temple,  149  ;  glory  and 
majesty  of,  151  ;  predicted  as  a  king, 
233;  "righteous  and  saved,"  234; 
"  afflicted"  and  "lowly,"  235  ;  riding 
on  an  ass,  236,  ff;  as  the  Branch,  70, 
ff,  149  ;  predictions  respecting,  149, 
233,  ff,  305.  ff,  381  ;  his  sufferings 
vicarious,  391  ;  priest  and  king,  153  ; 
counsel  of  peace  between  him  andja- 
haveh,  154 ;  New  Test,  confirmation  of 
this  view,  155  ;  causes  wars  to  cease, 
240  ;  destroys  his  people's  weapons, 
240  ;  speaks  peace  to  the  Gentiles, 
241,  247 ;  rejection  of  the,  242, 
32S,  ff,  340,  ff ;  victories  of,  247  ; 
limits  of  his  rule,  id. 

Messiahs,  Jewish  opinion  about  the  two, 
238,  389. 

Messianic  dispensation  represented  as 
"the  world  to  come, "449,  ff ;  a  mingled 
state  of  light  and  darkness,  520. 

Meyer,  56. 

Mijhael  the  archangel,  21,  53. 

Michaelis,  J.  D.,  xxvi.,  26,  32,  207, 
280,  473,  477,  537,  566,  587,  596. 

Michaelis,  C.B.,294,  358,  525,  534. 

R   R 


6io 


GENERAL   IXIjEX. 


Millennium,  supposcil  references  to  the, 

119,  180,  181,  262. 
Miiman,   History  of  the  Javs,  165,  226, 

257.345.  373- 

Minchah,  the  three  parts  of  the,  86. 

Mitre,  the  clean,  61,  62  ;  the  inscrip- 
tion on,  62. 

Month  as  a  symbolical  term,  317;  vari- 
ous interpretations  of,  313-316,  320. 

Months,  Jewish  and  Assyrian,  528. 

Moses,  legend  of  the  death  of,  55  ;  the 
body  of  Christ  and  body  of,  57  ; 
burial  of,  58.  59. 

Mount  of  Olives,  see  Olives. 

Mountain,  levelling  of  the,  95  ;  mean- 
ing of,  97. 

Mountains  overturned,  96  ;  of  brass  or 
copper  in  the  seventh  vision,  123  ; 
probably  Zion  and  the  Mount  of 
Olives,  126. 

Mourning  for  the  representative  of 
Jahaveh,  386,  388,  396,  ff,  403  ; 
national  and  individual,  397,  ff;  for 
Josiah,  394,  ff;  for  Adonis,  392. 

Movers,  xxvii.,  393,  582. 

Miihlau  and  Volck,  see  Gesenius'  Wbr- 
terbuch  ;  Miihlau,  De  Proverb.  Agur, 
202. 

Myrtle-trees  in  the  vision,  8,  10  ;  in  tlic 
temple,  8. 

Naegelsbach,  26. 

Nathan,  family  of,  399.  Concord,  of  R. 
Nathan,  Hi. 

Nations,  gathering  of  the,  458. 

Neander,  404. 

Nebuchadnezzar's  siege  of  Tyre,  212  ; 
see  Metallic  Image ;  his  captures  of 
Jerusalem,  22  ff. 

Nethinim,  219,  515. 

Neubauer,  Adolf,  Gcographie  dti  Tal- 
mud, ic£,  565 ;  Abu!l-walid,  532. 

Neumann,  xliv.,  passim. 

Newcome,  xliv,  Ixv. 

Nicephorus,  54. 

Night  suited  for  Divine  revelations,  5- 

Nile,  the,  295. 

Noldeke,  594. 

Norris,  528. 


Numbers,  symbolical  treatment  of,  31"  ; 
see  under  Month,  Day,  Thtid-part, 
Half. 

Obedience,  results  of,  184. 

Oecumenius,  54,  56. 

Observed  me,  those  who,  325,  ff. 

Oil  for  burning  and  anointing,  552. 

Olive  trees,  in  the  fifth  vision,  88,  ff ; 
two  fruitful  boughs  of,  91,  ff;  meaning 
of,  93 ;  according  to  some,  in  the  court 
of  the  temple,  9 ;  in  Scripture,  89. 

Olives,  Mount  of,  appearance  of  Jaha- 
veh on,  465,  ff,  472,  519  ;  Dean 
Stanley  on,  467  ;  mention  of,  in 
the  Old  Test. ,  470;  valley  through, 
471,  472,  473,  475;  Mount  of  Cor- 
ruption, 466,  470,  473,  519. 

Onias,  509. 

Oppert,  39. 

Origen,  53. 

von  Ortenberg,  xv.,  xxvii.,  xxxi.,  xli.. 
xlv.,  passim. 

Palestine  and  Philistia,  220,  568. 

Palmer's  Dacrt  of  the  Exodus,  491. 

Party  spirit  among  the  Jews,  442. 

"  Passing  by  and  returning,  176,  221. 

Peace,  see  Counsel,  Seed. 

Fella,  the  escape  to,  519. 

Perjurers  and  thieves,  109. 

Perowne,  Dean,  xxxviii.,  xl.,  xlv.  ;  on 
the  Psalms,  ix.,  462,  551. 

Pestilences,  499,  ff;  of  the  animals,  502. 

Philippi,  IVescfi  it.  Ursprung  d.  Stat. 
Const.,  550,  551. 

Philistia  and  Phoenicia,  prophecies 
against,  201. 

Philistines,  conversion  of  the,  217,  blood 
taken  away  from  their  mouth,  218  ; 
incorporated  into  the  body  of  Israel- 
ites, 220  ;  prophecies  against,  229,  ff. 

Philo,  Brez'iarium  of  the  Pseudo,  372. 

Pierced  One,  the,  384,  ff,  387,  437. 

Pinsker,  206. 

Pipes  of  the  candlestick,  83,  548. 

Pirke  Aboth,  339. 

Pirke  Eliczer,  596. 

Pit  without  water,  the,  251. 

Pool,  Matthew,  xlv. 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


6ii 


Porch  of  the  temple,  107. 

Potter,  flinging  to  the,   329  ;   view  of 
Hengstenberg,  332 ;  of  KHefoth,  ^^;^. 

Pressel,  xlv.,  passim. 

Priest,  see  J/i«/i  Priest. 

Prisoners  of  hope,  251. 

Promises,  why  not  more  largely  fulfilled, 
188. 

Prophecy,  cessation  of  real,  419  ;  why 
gift  removed,  420. 

Prophet,  actions  of  the,  represent  the 
actions  of  God,  304. 

Prophets,  no  insinuation  against,  in 
Zechariah,  419 ;  imagery  of  the, 
469,  ff ;  sons  of  the,  425  ;  false  p.  and 
superstitions  in  post-exilian  days,  414, 
416;  change  of  feeling  as  to,  417; 
instances  given  by  Zech.  to  show 
this  in  the  future,  417;  (i)  the  son 
slain  by  parents,  418,  ff ;  (2)  the 
defence  of  the  false  prophet  detected, 
424,  ff ;  false  p.  in  secret,  421  ;  hairy 
garment  of,  422  ;  wounds  of  false 
prophet,  426. 

Prophetic  horizon,  the,  6. 
Psalter  of  Solomon,  327,  582. 
Purifier,  Christ  the,  119. 
Pusey,  xxvii.,  xl.,  xlv.,  passim  ;  Daniel 
the  Prophet,  17,  21. 

Rab-mag,  169. 
Rahmer,  478. 

Rain,  prayers  for,  266 ;  only  to  be 
made   to    God,  267  ;    withdrawal  of, 

507,  ff- 
Rashi  (R.  Salomo  ben   Yizhak),   xvii., 
xlv.,  51,  96,  115,  116,  252,  281,   390, 
402,   417,  427,    512,    531,   534,   555, 

557,  568,  595- 

Rawlinson,  Rev. Prof.,  Herodottcs,  36,  39. 

Rawlinson,  Sir  Henry,  38,  205,  206. 

Reaction  against  false  prophets,  410,  ff; 
leading  to  transgression,  421. 

Records  of  the  Past,  39,  205,  231,  393. 

Regem-melek,  168. 

Reinke,  xlv.,  passim. 

Remnant,  half  of  the,  460  ;  not  cut  off 
from  the  city,  461,  ff,  518,  ff ;  bles- 
sings given  to  the,  497,  519. 


Renan,  21,  482. 

Revelation,  the   riders    in  the,    13  ;   see 

Horses,  Colours. 
Ribera,  595. 

Rider  on  the  red  horse,  li. 
Riehm,  xlvi. ;  on  the  prophetic  horizon,  6. 
Rivers  of  grace,  487,  ff,  521. 
Roberts'  Discussions  on  the  Gosfels,  336. 
Robertson,     Hist,     of     the     Christian 

Church,  404. 
Rodwell,  Rev.  J.  M.,  205. 
Rodiger,  xlvi.,  xlvii. ,  594, 
Roll,  the  vision  of  the  flying,  105,  ff. 
Rosenmiiller,  xxvi.,  xlv.,  passim, 
de  Rossi,  xlvi.,  passim. 
Row's  Bampton  Lectures,  337. 
Rufus,  Titus  Annius,  165. 
Russia,  257. 
Riickert,  583,  588. 

Saadiah    130. 

Samairitans  and  Jews,  146,  245,  284. 

Sammael  and  Michael  and  Moses,  55  ; 
destroyer  of  Leviathan,  53. 

Sanctuary,  the  three  parts  of  the  worship 
in,  86  ;  dimensions  of,  107  ;  measure 
of  the,  107. 

Sandrock,  xlv. 

Sapor,  raillery  of  king,  238. 

Sarezer,  168. 

Satan  accusing  the  high  priest,  46,  ff ; 
Neumann's  strange  view  of,  52 ; 
rebuke  of,  narrated  by  Jude,  53  ; 
rebuke  narrated  in  Zechariah,  52 ; 
mention  of,  x.,  xxi. 

"  Saying,  "meaning  of  the  expression,  5. 

Sayce,  393. 

vSchegg,  xlv.,  passim. 

Schrader,  Keilinschriften  d.  A.T.,  xlvi., 
168,  169,  205,  393,  528,  577  ;  Keilin- 
schriften u.  Geschichtsfor seining,  xlvi., 

565,  569- 
Schlier,  xlv.,  174,  313. 
Schleusner,  Thes.  Phil.  Crit.  sive  Lex. 

in  LXX.,  etc.,  xlix.,  186,  392,  409, 

536,  545>  549.  565,  571,  5S0,  596. 
Schmieder,  174,  361,  473. 
Schmidt,  see  Merx. 
Schottgen,  De  Messia,  549,  570,  596. 


6l2 


(iENERAI.    INDEX. 


Scluiltens,  551,  573. 

Schroeder,  192,  508.      , 

Kchiirer,  582. 

Seder-olam-zutta,  372. 

"Seed of  peace,"  tlic,  186. 

Self-lacerations,  428,  ff. 

Seleucidian  dynasty,  the,  132, 

Sermon  on  the  mount,  109. 

Seven  eyes  on  the  stone,  the,  73,  ff,  98. 

Seventy  years,  the,  22,  171,  534,  536  ; 
seventy  weeks  of  Daniel,  313. 

Severus,  57. 

Shadrach,  Meshach  and  Abednego, 
see  under  Hanaiiiah. 

Sharezer  and  Regeni-melech,  16S. 

Sheep  of  slaughter,  different  explana- 
tions, 305  ;  scattered,  443  ;  the  most 
wretched,  325. 

Shephelah,  the,  173. 

Sliepherd  and  his  staves,  30S  ;  weari- 
ness of,  321  ;  his  solemn  decision, 
322  ;  breaking  of  the  staves,  322, 
342  ;  demand  for  wages,  328  ;  the 
remuneration  offered  to,  329 ;  rejected, 
329 ;  "  my  shepherd,"  435  ;  shepherd 
smitten  for  the  sin  of  the  flock,  441,  ff. 

Shepherd,  the  wicked,  346  ;  "  idol- 
shepherd  "  an  erroneous  translation, 
346 ;  instruments  of,  347 ;  folly  and 
sin  of,  348 ;  opinion  of  modern 
critics,  348 ;  the  Roman  oppressor, 
349,  ff;  destruction  of,  351. 

Shepherds,  evil,  foreign  oppressors, 
270,  ff,  306,  349  ;  the  cutting  off  of 
the  three,  312,  ff. 

Shimeites,  the,  399. 

Shinar,  the  land  of,  118. 

Shir  ha-shiriin  Rabba,  538,  596. 

Shoulder,  the  refractory,  175. 

.Sibylline  oracles,  543. 

Sidon,  210,  231. 

Sin,  punishment  for,  no. 

Slaves  bought,  425. 

Sling  stones,  259. 

Small  things,  day  of,  99. 

Smiths,  the  four,  31,  ff;  why  smiths 
were  seen  in  the  vision,  45. 

Smith,  DeanR.  Payne,  xlvi.  Thesaurus 
Syriacus,  546. 


Smith,  G. ,  Assyrian  Canon,  205. 

,,        W.,  Biblical  Dictionary,  xlv., 

26,  225,  492. 
Sohar,  570,  596. 

Solomon,  The  Psalter  of ;  327,  582,  565, 
Spirit,  the  resting  of  the,  1 39 ;  of  un- 

cleanness,  416;  exorcised,  421, 
Spoiling  of  the  foes,  502. 
Stahelin,  xlv.,  72,  140,  152,  200,  565. 
Stanley,  Dean,   Lectures  on  the  JeiLnsh 

Church,  49,  50,  226,  320,  581  ;  Sinai 

and  Palestine,  467. 
"Standing   before"    one,    meaning  of 

the  phrase,  46. 
Staves  of  beauty  and  bands,  308. 
Stone,  of  burden,  364,  370,  see  Temple, 

Christ,  Messiah  ;  stones  of  a  diadem, 

260. 
Storms  of  the  south,  256. 
Strack,  x\vu . ,  Prole^.  Critica,  541  ;  Fir- 

kowitzsch   und    seine    Entdeckungen, 

285. 
Stork,  the,  and  stork-winged   women, 

117. 
Svedberg's      notion      concerning      the 

mountains  of  Dalarne,  124. 
Swedenborg,  124. 
Synagogue,  men  of  the  Great,  xvii. 
Syria,  prophecies  against,  201. 

Tabernacle  of  God,  8 ;  candlestick  in 
the,  82 ;  see  under  Candlestick ; 
dimensions  of  the  Holy  Place  in  the, 
107. 

Tabernacles,  the  feast  of,  505. 

Tacitus,  9. 

Talbot,  H.  F.,  231. 

Talent- weight,  the,  in. 

Talmud,    71,    77,    96,    163,    164,  165, 

225,  303.  338,  3S9.  390,  4S1,  53». 
xvii.,  xix.,  xxiii. 

Taylor,  Rev.  C,  Pirke  Aboth,  xvii. ,  339. 

Taskmasters  abolished,  222. 

Temple,  commencement  of  the  build- 
ing of,  4 ;  foundation  stone  of  the 
second,  71,  ff;  glory  of  the  second, 
100  ;  porch  of  the,  107  ;  the  spiri- 
tual, 150  ;  pots  in  the,  513;  Canaanite 
no  longer  in  the,  515,  ff. 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


613 


Ten  tribes,  see  under  T^velve,  invited 
to  return,  xxxix. ,  279  ;  large  numbers 
of  the  members  of  these  tribes  among 
the  exiles  who  returned,  278,  281  ; 
myth  of  the  lost,  281,  284. 

Tents  of  Judah,  366. 

Teraphim,  267,  ff. 

Territories  ruled  over  by  David  and 
Solomon,  201. 

TertuUian,  399. 

Theiner,  xlv.,  passim. 

Thenius,  319,  395,  495,  56S,  581. 

Theodoret,    47,    204,    453,    460,    465, 

505- 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  204,  505. 
Third  part,  the,  442. 
Thirty  shekels,  the,  329  ;    thirty  pieces 

of  silver  given  for  Christ,    336,  ff.  ; 

341- 

Thieves  and  perjurers,  109. 

Tholuck,  xlvi.,  235.  Proph.  11.  Hire 
Weiss.,  559,  5S6. 

Tibullus,  430. 

Tischendorf,  xlvi. 

Titus,  candlestick  on  the  arch  of,  82 ; 
war  of  the  Romans  under,  453,  460, 
461. 

Tremellius  and  Junius,  xlv. 

Trees,  destruction  of,  spoken  by  the 
prophets,  301 ;  used  for  siege  pur- 
poses, 303  ;  spoken  of  as  symbolical, 
301, 

Turpie,  xlv.,  337. 

Twelve  tribes  one  whole,  the,  243  ; 
their  return  from  captivity,  244 ;  all 
called  "Jews,"  246;  termed  "chil- 
dren of  Israel,"  xxxix.,  244 ;  united 
in  the  struggle  of  Maccabee  days, 
277,  ff ;  union  of,  282-288;  sown 
among  the  nations,  285 ;  blessings 
granted  to,  288,  ff;  344;  see  under, 
Je-tV^  ye'iVS. 

Twenty-fourth  day  of  the  month,  sig- 
nificance of,  4. 

Tyre,  siege  of,  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  212  ; 
destruction  by  Alexander,  212. 

U'mbreit,  xlvi.,  passim. 
Unicorn,  26. 


Uzziah,  leprosy  of,  478  ;  earthquake  in 
the  days  of,  477. 

V^alckenaar,  337. 

Valley  between  the  mountains,  138  ; 
valley  of  myrtles,  10;  meaning  of, 
10  ;  see  under  Mount  of  Olives. 

Venema,  xlvi.,  passim. 

Vicariousness   of  Messiah's   sufferings, 

391- 

Vine   "  the  seed  of  peace,"  the,  186  ; 

the  golden,  8,  531. 
Virgil,  10,  278. 
Vossius,  575- 
Vitringa,  17,  346,  422. 
Volck,    132,    323,    see    Muhlau    and 

Volck. 

Wagenseil,    Tela    Ignea    Satani,    582, 

587- 
Water   of  cleansing,   410 ;    the   living 

waters,  4S7,  ff. 

Wellhausen,  xxvii.,  xlii.,  393  ;  Der  Text 
dcr  B ticker  Sam.,  167,  569. 

de  Wette,  xxvii.,  .xxxviii.,  57,  383, 
415. 

While,  God  angry  for  a  little,  25. 

Wickedness  and  her  instruments,  113. 

Winds,  the  four  chariots  compared  to, 
127,  ff ;  do  not  signify  ^the  winds, 
137  ;  winds  in  Scripture,  127. 

Wine-presses,  the  king's,  496. 

Woman  in  the  ephah,  112  ;  with  the 
talent-weight,  115;  punishment  of, 
116 ;  rescue,  117. 

Women,  stork-winged,  1 17;  signifi- 
cance of,  117. 

Wordsworth,  Bishop,  xlvi.,  24^  256, 
266,  275,  346. 

"  World  to  come,"  the,  449,  450. 

Wounding  for  idolatrous  purposes,  42S, 

430. 
Wright,  Prof.   W.,  Arabic   Grammar, 

551.  592. 
Wunsche,  Erliiuteruiti;  der  Evangelien, 
96,    564,    571  ;  Leiden   des   Messias, 
xi.,  xlvi.,   239,  389,  390,  549;  Der 
Prophet  Ilosca,  292,  293,  329. 


6i4 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


Xenophon  Anabasis,  215  ;  Cyropxdia, 
xxxii. 

YalkiU  Sliimconi,  564,  595,  596, 

Zeal,  flaming,  41 S,  ff. 

Zechariali's  visions  not  mere  poetic 
fancy,  6 :  first  vision,  the  angelic 
riders,  8,  ff ;  '•cond  vision,  the  four 
horses,  26  ;  tnuJ  vision,  the  man 
with  the  measuring  line,  33 ;  fourth 
vision,  Joshua  before  the  Angel,  45  ; 
fifth  vision,  the  golden  candlestick, 
80;  sixth  vision,  flying  roll  and 
woman  in  the  ephah,  105  ;  seventh 
vision,  the  four  chariots,  123. 

Zechariah  not  the  young  man  of  chap, 
ii. ,  p.  xvi.,  35  ;  notices  of  in  the  Tal- 


mud and  Church  Fatliers,  xv.,  fT; 
date  of  his  earliest  predictions,  xxii., 
ff ;  the  name,  xx.  the  martyr  Zech- 
ariah, xix. ;  the  son  of  Jeberechiah, 
XV.,  xvii.;  external  evidence  as  to  the 
unity  of  the  book,  xxii.,  ff;  sketch 
of  the  rise  and  progress  of  critical 
opinion  on  the  integrity  of  the  book, 
XXV.,  ff;  differences  between  the 
first  and  second  part,  xxviii. ,  ff; 
considerations  in  favour  of  its  in- 
tegrity and  genuineness,  xxxiv. 

Zerubbabel  and  Joshua  the  two  olive 
trees,  90  ;  encouraged,  95  ;  no 
crown  placed  on  his  head,  147,  148. 

Zingerle,  Dr.  P.,  534. 

Zunz,  493,  see  Arnhcim. 


'•   iHMiier.  TIk  Sel<vuo>l  rriiiting  Works,  Fruiue,  .luJ  LuuJou. 


i! 

Jl^         Date  Due^^'em/g^hi 

^•;r8    "38 

'■  ^  ^  W 

OvemigU 

r^rp  9 

i 

i 

UL^  <^ 

»OV8ol^ 

7?t^^^MfaHMttM|^^ 

^^^^^jyJJJgU 

r 

^ 

m 

^ 

$) 

'•Vl''W'<M  -    >;i  ■ 


BSl665.W948c2 
Zec^anahandh,sp.ophec.escons,dered 

'  (II  iinii(ii|i)iiiiii 


